No Soup for You! Only one reality.

[steve_bank]

I read fine.

You are trying to justify a belief in many worlds.

A lot of your threads on philosophy are excursions into fantasy. Nothing particularly wrong with escapism, it just is not science.

Again you use 'philosophy is this or does that'. Ethics and logic came from individuals not categorizes and labels.

You are defending a word 'philosophy' wihjout definition,. the senseless of philosophical debate. Debate over abstractions.

Ethics? Science gave us weapons of mass destruction and technology that lead to climate change.

End of diversion. Go to last post here.

Post in thread 'What Is Philosophy?'

Nov 17, 2024

"Love of wisdom" would be a better translation than "love of knowledge". A love of knowledge would be philognosis, philepisteme or some such construction. So, love of wisdom. And as I do love the pursuit of wisdom, I see no need to dress that turkey in further verbiage, it's fine the way it is. I love science, also. Enough so that I dedicated my life's work to teaching a branch or two of it! But, that does not contradict my wider experience of loving knowledge, and learning, for their own sakes. Science is my favorite methodology for seeking wisdom from the material world, not...

• Politesse

• 

 

[DBT]

Brian Greene has nine types of multiverses which include "quilted, inflationary, brane, cyclic, landscape, quantum, holographic, simulated and ultimate...."

 

[Jarhyn]

I’d have to read the whole article to see exactly what they are driving at, but if Many Worlds is true, it creates a strange state off affairs both for determinism and free will. On this account, if confronted with a choice between Pepsi and Coke, according to the Born Rule the chance of one or the other emerging is 50/50. But of course the Born rule only really applies to the subjective experience of a single branch induced by wave-function collapse. But the MWI only comes into play if there is no wave-function collapse. So at the moment of choice between Pepsi and Coke, there is now one branch where I choose Pepsi and another where I choose Coke. Both versions of me will have the feeling of having freely chosen what they did. But notice that hard determinism claims that there is only one possible outcome of a fixed set of antecedent states. (I think I’ve shown this to be false, but put that aside.) If MWI is true, then it must be the case that a fixed set of antecedent states produces not just one possible outcome, but all possible outcomes.

So, one oft-overlooked interpretation stems from a few interesting facts, which is both deterministic and "many worlds".

It has to do with a property of infinitely varied systems lacking any preferred reference frame at infinite scales, and how they may come to contain similar things in dissimilar contexts, or dissimilar things in similar external contexts.

It doesn't need to be within "the observable universe" to exist in such a way, so long as we can infer homogeneity of function and a lack of preference in the absence of any distinct "center".

In such a situation, the "parallel world" is still this world, but so far in an unknowable direction from where we are in it that you could not ever reach it from here assuming you could find it, which you couldn't.

All of the same logic applies as per "could", but it's often because you don't know where in infinity you are at, and it's not like there's a road map.

 

[steve_bank]

I’d have to read the whole article to see exactly what they are driving at, but if Many Worlds is true, it creates a strange state off affairs both for determinism and free will. On this account, if confronted with a choice between Pepsi and Coke, according to the Born Rule the chance of one or the other emerging is 50/50. But of course the Born rule only really applies to the subjective experience of a single branch induced by wave-function collapse. But the MWI only comes into play if there is no wave-function collapse. So at the moment of choice between Pepsi and Coke, there is now one branch where I choose Pepsi and another where I choose Coke. Both versions of me will have the feeling of having freely chosen what they did. But notice that hard determinism claims that there is only one possible outcome of a fixed set of antecedent states. (I think I’ve shown this to be false, but put that aside.) If MWI is true, then it must be the case that a fixed set of antecedent states produces not just one possible outcome, but all possible outcomes.

'Born rule only really applies to the subjective experience of a single branch induced by wave-function collapse.'

What is a wave function and how does it collapse? How does the Born rule apply to subjective choice instead of physical measurement??

 

[steve_bank]

Goddamnit, I was halfway through that article when I pressed a link, and it took me to popup that said I had to subscribe to SciAm to read the link. When I hit the back button, I got the same popup for the article I was only half done reading.

Some people who have subscriptions are able to gift articles to non subscribers. Can you do that, Elixir?

Back in the 80s and early 90s I read SciAmer every month. They ran out of topics and started p publishing more of sensationalist pop science.

They can't compete with the Internet and magazine sales probably will not keep them in business.

CNN and other mainstream media sites are dong the same thing. You get the beginning of a story and then are asked to subscribe to see it in full.