On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> In a branching multiverse where all possibilities happen at a decision
>> point, some versions of you decide to type the sentence and others do
>> not. This could be completely deterministic for the multiverse as a
>> whole: x versions of you will definitely type it, y versions of you
>> will definitely not.
>
> I understand the theory, but my example shows how that appears not to
> be the case, since my experience of intending to do something almost
> always results in an experience where I do what I intended. I can
> control the probability range that it will happen through the strength
> of my motive and the clarity of my sense.
>
>> However, from your point of view, you don't know
>> which version of you you will experience, so your future is
>> indeterminate /  random / probabilistic, not deterministic.
>
> So you say. How much do you want to bet that I'm going to sleep in my
> bed tonight? How about for the rest of my life not including
> vacations? That's a lot of universe where I sleep under a bush or on
> the roof or in Jellystone Park.

There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
to sleep under a bush tonight. You would have to admit that under your
concept of free will, otherwise in a deterministic single universe you
would be compelled to sleep in your bed, which I don't have a problem
with but you do. In a deterministic multiverse, you will definitely
sleep in your bed in most universes (loosely "most" if they are
infinite in number) and definitely sleep under a bush in a few. You
can't be sure in which type of universe you will end up in so the
future is indeterminate.

>> It's
>> impossible - logically impossible, impossible even if you know every
>> deterministic detail of the multiverse's future history - for you to
>> know which version will be the "real" you, since all versions have
>> equal claim to being the "real" you. This is a quite simple, but
>> counterintuitive idea.
>
> No I understand the idea completely, I just think it's an obvious plug
> for the inconsistencies of QM. Like Dark matter dark energy,
> superposition, emergence, and entanglement. It's all phlogiston,
> libido, elan vital, animal magnetism, etc. It's quite nice in theory,
> but it sodomizes one side of Occam's Razor with the other. It's
> counter intuitive because it's an absurd way of explaining the
> universe in terms of nearly infinite nearly nonsensical universes.
> Every grain of sand on every planet in the cosmos having it's own set
> of universes customized to fit every pebble collision and sea tousled
> movement? Seriously? With sense as a primitive you don't need any of
> that. The universe is one thing with different views of itself. Each
> view doesn't need to be a creator of literal separate universes.

Whether it's true or not is a separate question but it does allow for
your future to be truly indeterminate in a deterministic multiverse.
The teleportation thought experiments we often talk about here model
this in a simpler way.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Reply via email to