Free will and the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM

[Age]

Age, I've looked everywhere for my dice and can't find it. For the past 2 years I have used it to roll three times, if 6 comes up on every roll then I bother to address your posts.

Even if I find it, I don't like your chances.

you do not address my posts when they point out, and challenge you over, things like your claim that you 'have a far better understanding of the true nature of reality than (probably) anyone on this forum'.

See, if a person who really did have a better understanding of the so-called 'true nature of reality', than any one, then they, unlike you, would not be absolutely afraid and scared to just 'clarify' what is the 'true nature of reality', exactly, when just asked to.

you do not address, nor clarify, because you literally can not.

[Age]

OK atheists - perhaps attempt to consider NO God - just that we are in a simulation with an advanced A.I. providing our perceivable REAL_IT_Y

..heck, forget the simulation, perhaps the universe has some natural efficiency built in for conscious observers.

Is what I am stating reasonable?


I'm afraid I'm going to have to bring the intelligence that operates throughout ALL matter into the 'equation'..aka God.

This Intelligence is HERE, for all to 'look at', 'see', and 'use'. you, however, like every other adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, are not using this 'Intelligence' anywhere enough as you all could be. In fact, it is you adult human beings, with those False and Wrong pre/assumptions and beliefs, which is what is stopping, preventing, distorting, and twisting the Intelligence, that is; the ability, from revealing, demonstrating, and illustrating to you adult human beings what the actual Truth is of things, HERE.

you are all, literally, 'staring' at It, and even 'seeing' It, but you just cannot recognize and comprehend It all of the time. Again, solely because of pre-existing beliefs and presumptions.

If it wasn't for some certain things I've learned about this entity, I'd be of the opinion that we are indeed within a simulation - and everything we perceive is at the ultimate behest of some super advanced A.I. (rather than a Divine being - using something akin to...a super advance A.I.)

The reason I feel this needs to be considered is that it appears everything is 'done' to maintain maximum efficiency.

So, you adult human beings continually bickering and arguing, as seen in and throughout forums like this one, is 'done', supposedly, to the maximum efficiency of 'what', exactly?

And, you adult human beings continually warring and killing each other, over greed and selfishness, is 'done', supposedly, to the maximum efficiency of 'what', exactly?

I ask knowing that you will never answer and clarify. But, I ask to show how you adult human beings would, back then when this is being written, say and claim some things, but in actual 'reality' have absolutely nothing at that backs up and proofs your claims true.

Take a computer game that simulates reality for example.

you would have to be able to inform the readers of what is 'reality', exactly, first before you could successfully claim that a computer game does actually simulate 'reality', itself.

The processor(s) isn't overly concerned with things that arn't being viewed by the observer. So as the view within your monitor or VR headset swings around, all the massive amounts of data pertaining to what will eventually be rendered as pixel hue\colour\position is only 'bothered' with when required to be projected for the human to observe it. Of course, the environmental area data is loaded into GPU memory for quick access for processing, but this isn't the key point I am attempting to make.

So, a computer game does not actually work like actual 'Reality', Itself, does.

So my theory is that this God (or simulation if you still want to be atheist) appears to insist our reality per human perception is also of extreme efficiency.

Again, 'extreme efficiency' in relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, every thing that exists is existing, but you adult human beings do not 'see' all things, nor the actual Truth of things, not because God, or something else, is not showing you all or does not want you to 'see' it all, by, again, because you adult human beings block out and distort the actual Truth solely because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions. Remove them and all can be 'seen', recognized, comprehended, and understood absolutely clearly, and fully.

Once again, when and while one is Truly open, then all can be 'seen' absolutely properly, and Correctly, for what it all Truly is. The irrefutable Truth of things is revealed, once and for all, almost immediately.

It makes sense that this would be the case, who wants entropy to increase at a greater rate if that can be avoided.

Here is another example of just saying some words in the hope that they will back up and/or support this one's pre-existing belief/s here.

Thus, the wave-function collapse is akin to the processor (God) providing the observer with the observation required - where all around the information is in a wave fuzzy wuzzy form.

So, what is the so-called 'maximum efficiency' of making all of you human beings remain fuzzy, unclear, lost, and confused in regards to what the actual Truth of things is, exactly?

Why would God make you all 'see' very different things, which is leading you all to bicker, fight, and even kill each other here "attofishpi"?

Or, in other words, what was the actual purpose of God making you 'see' some things, which you are absolutely incapable of explaining/backing up and supporting?

Again, what would be the 'maximum efficiency' of doing this in relation to, exactly?

Just thought I'd bounce that around in your craniums for thought..

What for, exactly?

Did you doing this lead towards 'maximum efficiency'?

If yes, then in relation to 'what', exactly?

[Age]

Is there a conflict there? If all of our decisions are 'pre-determined' and there is no 'free will' then how can there ever be a point at which any decision is ever 'all decisions at once', with every possible decision 'branching off' to create an alternate 'world'?

The MWI bollocks provides no avenue to support "free will", in fact to the contrary. Decisions remain deterministic and every avenue of any decision leads down another path of a deterministic universe.

For those who want to believe and claim that decisions are deterministic, then what were decisions 'determined' by, exactly?

And, what are decisions determined for, exactly?

The irrefutable answers by the way are very easy and very simple to come across, and know with absolute certainty. That is; of course, once one learns how to 'look at' and 'see' things for how they Truly are.

Oh, and by the way, the Universe is as 'deterministic' as you human beings have 'free will', and you are absolutely 'free' to make of this as you 'will'.

[attofishpi]

Is there a conflict there? If all of our decisions are 'pre-determined' and there is no 'free will' then how can there ever be a point at which any decision is ever 'all decisions at once', with every possible decision 'branching off' to create an alternate 'world'?

The MWI bollocks provides no avenue to support "free will", in fact to the contrary. Decisions remain deterministic and every avenue of any decision leads down another path of a deterministic universe.

For those who want to believe and claim that decisions are deterministic, then what were decisions 'determined' by, exactly?

Dammit, the dice rolled 6-6-6

I was advocating for the Devil's position since I actually believe in "free-will" - point being that MWI in no way should change what determinist believe about determinism.

...and now for a pointless question: Comprendre?

[attofishpi]

Is there a conflict there? If all of our decisions are 'pre-determined' and there is no 'free will' then how can there ever be a point at which any decision is ever 'all decisions at once', with every possible decision 'branching off' to create an alternate 'world'?

The MWI bollocks provides no avenue to support "free will", in fact to the contrary. Decisions remain deterministic and every avenue of any decision leads down another path of a deterministic universe.

Right. It's 'bollocks',

Finally! Those three brain cells had a vote did they?

Why don't you email Sean Carroll and let him know that he can stop working on MWI because you have the 'theory of everything'?

An email from me, or even Einstein via some wormhole will not stop Sean from doing the actual reason he bangs on about such a fanciful pile of twaddle. Loads of gullible people (like you) are blown away by the concept, wow it's amazing, imagine that..so Sean, bless him, get's to go on Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman etc..and, here, here is the big fat reason - he gets to promote his books and make wad loads of cash

Either that, or he has turned into that dipshit thang you mention so often.

[accelafine]

Aaaw, you're such a lovely lass.

Thanks!

If you're ready to talk to someone who is interested in taking you seriously, I'm still curious about what I asked before.

Michio Kaku says here that it's classical physics that's deterministic, not quantum physics. I had assumed it was the other way around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM

[attofishpi]

Thanks!

If you're ready to talk to someone who is interested in taking you seriously, I'm still curious about what I asked before.

Michio Kaku says here that it's classical physics that's deterministic, not quantum physics. I had assumed it was the other way around.

..and you call me stupid.

[accelafine]

If you're ready to talk to someone who is interested in taking you seriously, I'm still curious about what I asked before.

Michio Kaku says here that it's classical physics that's deterministic, not quantum physics. I had assumed it was the other way around.

..and you call me stupid.

Actually NO ONE KNOWS either way. If I claimed to KNOW then that would make ME pretty STUPID, dipshit.

At least I'm curious and willing to learn, unlike intellectual quarks such as yourself who claim to be privy to the greatest secrets of the Universe.

[attofishpi]

At least I'm curious and willing to learn, unlike intellectual quarks such as yourself who claim to be privy to the greatest secrets of the Universe.

Let's just try and clear something up between us, because you clearly seem hellbent on simply pissing me off with gaslighting and ad homs.

If you scanned my bookcase you'd find that I am extremely curious, particularly about physics thus oui, I am STILL learning. My claim to know that God exists should not come to some detriment to any discussion since, if I present a case\account of this entity that you find not plausible, then certainly point that out and we can discuss. I cannot deny what I know - unfortunately gnosis is a one way trip thus me becoming an atheist now is impossible.

If I don't KNOW something, I state it with words such as - my belief or my theory. Things I do KNOW about God I will not compromise upon and certainly anyone - apart from egA - that feels I should clarify my reasoning, empirical experience as to HOW I know such and such attribute about God should challenge me upon it, reasonably and without condescension.

Agreed?

[accelafine]

blah blah god blah blah god blah

Whatever.

[attofishpi]

blah blah god blah blah god blah

Whatever.

You should chip off some of that "pride" thing. I suppose I'll just accept that as an agreement.

[accelafine]

You are just plain annoying. And stop quoting me.

[Flannel Jesus]

Thanks!

If you're ready to talk to someone who is interested in taking you seriously, I'm still curious about what I asked before.

Michio Kaku says here that it's classical physics that's deterministic, not quantum physics. I had assumed it was the other way around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM

Yeah that's right. It's kind of easier to think of classical physics as a world of billiard balls. At any moment, all the billiard balls have a specific location and momentum and you can deterministically (in principle, not necessarily in practice) figure out exactly what's going to happen next - when they're going to bump into other balls, what the subsequent locations and momenta of the balls will be, etc. Quantum mechanics says that, on the smallest scale, that's not right.

(And many worlds is arguably a kind of weird middle ground, depending on how you look at it)

When it comes to free will, though, is it your view that determinism makes free will impossible?

[accelafine]

If you're ready to talk to someone who is interested in taking you seriously, I'm still curious about what I asked before.

Michio Kaku says here that it's classical physics that's deterministic, not quantum physics. I had assumed it was the other way around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM

Yeah that's right. It's kind of easier to think of classical physics as a world of billiard balls. At any moment, all the billiard balls have a specific location and momentum and you can deterministically (in principle, not necessarily in practice) figure out exactly what's going to happen next - when they're going to bump into other balls, what the subsequent locations and momenta of the balls will be, etc. Quantum mechanics says that, on the smallest scale, that's not right.

(And many worlds is arguably a kind of weird middle ground, depending on how you look at it)

When it comes to free will, though, is it your view that determinism makes free will impossible?

My opinion is irrelevant. although I find it incredibly depressing that we might have no control over anything, and that our 'decisions' are only illusions.

[Flannel Jesus]

My opinion is irrelevant. although I find it incredibly depressing that we might have no control over anything, and that our 'decisions' are only illusions.

I'm not asking about your opinion, like if led Zeppelin or the Beatles is better, I'm asking about your understanding. Is it your understanding that determinism would mean decisions are only illusions?