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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
