On 27 March 2014 17:39, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple >> or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. >> > > Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced > throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for > their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as > male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male > grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake > me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, > male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males > employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you > see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. > Sorry!) > > >> Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were >> overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if >> false type A. >> > > Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, > because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse > before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that > knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 > years. > > > Not "believe in", just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't > actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. > Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be > overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The > problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not > necessarily consciously available. > > I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two choices > which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit one to > just replacement even if there's only one universe. > > Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single > universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things > appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't > (can't be) "interested" in what happens in a parallel world which can't > communicate with the one they're in. > > >> There shouldn't be any split along gender line. >> > > Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, > nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a > few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the > notion that people are "blank slates" and that gender roles are purely > assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans > indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would > blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the > animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) > > Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire > species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), > because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a > daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) > > > I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But A > vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI > is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or > female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but > exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one > universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. > > OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems more likely to me that genes would act as though there is one universe whether that's the case or not, for reasons I already mentioned). Anyway let's assume it does, at least for the sake of argument, and see if it's coherent, if you'll pardon a quantum pun.
So the idea is that in a multiverse we - indeed all animals (and plants, etc) should plump for a reproductive strategy that is somehow equivalent to the "three descendants on a quantum coin toss" one. I guess my next question is, what could such a reproductive strategy possibly look like in real life, given that most animals have no access to quantum coin tossing? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
