The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Who you are and what you are is an accident. This can't be true. Can it? What about ancestry and environment and nurturing. Surely we are what our past history made us? Or have I misunderstood the post. You have misunderstood the post. The chain of events is accidental; whether you happen to be a p...

The "we" in another universe wouldn't actually be "us". They'd be a very similar person, but not identical to us, as they have had different experiences. As we move forward in time, these differences accumulate. The "we" would be identical in every detail. The only dif...

Who would want to debate with you? You have no original thoughts. You contribute nothing to expand the intellectual horizon. You are just a self obsessed pseudo intellectual like your friend. Deluded and pitiful. :lol: You sound familiar? So being called a TIT is familiar to you ? Yes I guess it is.

Personally, I'm still interested in what ethical consequences are involved in such thoughts? Who would want to debate with you? You have no original thoughts. You contribute nothing to expand the intellectual horizon. You are just a self obsessed pseudo intellectual like your friend. Deluded and pi...

:D Agreed, Arising_uk ! PS: Probably badly hidden envy anyhow! Did I mention "probably"...? hi-hi-hi :D Envious ! You COMPLETE CRETIN. That's what this site is all about ; f****** ' "pseuds" corner ' they should call it . Einstein merely used the moon as an example you fool. He ...

I do not find that the replies here have a basis in either science or academic learning ;so you will excuse me if I take leave of this forum .

I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observati...

It has to conform with probability. Which I guess rests upon a bedrock of Logic? But apart from this, why do you think there are ethical consequences involved in such thoughts? Things happen in accordance with their probability. In ethics both Freud and Einstein did not believe in choice. Who you a...

Arising_uk wrote: Necessity means the 'thing' is true in all possible worlds, Possibility means it is true in at least one possible word, and this is where I get lost as what are Contradictions? Impossibility, i.e. not true in any possible world(?).

It has to conform with probability.

So? As I assume this 'superposition' collapses to the choice and I appear to be the one making them and suffering the consequences and rewards. So why would ethics change at all to the being who believes this Everett III alternative? Everett's view is that the superposition does not collapse but de...

Hi Electron, What implications for ethics? p.s. Is this interpretation like the many-world semantics of the modal logic of necessity and possibility?? The implication for ethics is "choice of action" but in superposition there exists all possible choices. This means a variety of choices i...

It's funny you post this in the metaphysics section since the Copenhagen interpretation really only says something about physics and thus this looks better in the Philosophy of Science section... maybe, in a possible world, in a parallel universe. I've replied... buuh, buuh... :) Yes, thanks for po...

It now appears to be the case that Hugh Everett III offers the only alternative to The Copenhagen Interpretation . The Double Slit Experiment confirms Superposition of the particle in all possible states. This has been accepted by the academic world and now the upshot is ,that we exist independently...