On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
>> to sleep under a bush tonight.
> Only because of how we have defined probability and our assumptions
> about what it possible. There is nothing to say those definitions and
> assumptions relate to something real.

If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My understanding is that you don't approve of this sort of certain as
you believe it leaves no room for free will or even consciousness.

>> 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.
> I understand the theory, and it would be interesting if we were in a
> theoretical universe, but ultimately it's absurd. It's Horton Hears A
> Who on crack. There would be a quintillion universes for every dust
> mite's turd's journey through the bed sheets. All it accomplishes is
> to find a way of arguing a way that everything in the universe is real
> except our own will is real. Somehow our ordinary experience is a
> magical exception because the idea of our decision making power makes
> us uncomfortable to explain.

So are you saying that you don't believe in the multiverse or are you
saying that the multiverse, if it were to exist, would leave no room
for free will?

>> > 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.
> But it does it by neutralizing any significance of one outcome over
> another. Why do we care about determining anything if we have no power
> to change it?

It doesn't neutralise significance. In one universe you wake up in
your bed and you tell yourself that you made a good decision, your bed
is warm and comfortable and it would have been stupid to sleep under a
bush. In another universe you wake up under a bush and you tell
yourself that you made a good decision, even though you were cold and
uncomfortable, because you have achieved your purpose of empathising
better with homeless people. In each case you made your own decision,
freely, with good reason and according to the laws of physics. Before
you made the decision you were not completely sure which way you would
go. Right now, you can say you're pretty sure you will wake up in your
bed tomorrow and I would bet that that is what will happen, but you
could change your mind.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to