On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 01:06:45PM +0000, David Nyman wrote:
> Russell, isn't it central to the multiverse view that distinct,
> univocal observer experiences supervene on each branch?  In which
> case, isn't it correct to apply Maudlin's argument to each branch
> separately?  If so, to oppose the conclusion by appealing to all the
> branches simultaneously might seem like wanting to have your cake and
> eat it too.
> David

Its a fair point, but let me answer this way: The observer experience
must be of a single branch - this is effectively the definition of a
branch. However, this is not the same as saying the observer must
supervene on a single branch, if it supervenes at all. Supervenience
just means that if my experience differs, then whatever I supevene on
must differ also. Supervenience over multiple branches is not apriori
nonsense. For example, it may not be possible to slice multiverse
branches in any objective sense (David Deutsch's fungibility
argument). In which case, supervenience must be across all branches
that make up an observer moment.

My point is simply that Maudlin's argument only rules out
supervenience on a single branch, assuming COMP. To rule out
supervenience on multiple branches requires a different set of
considerations, and I'm not convinced by Bruno's dovetailer approach
to this. 


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to