Philosophy Now Forum

Ridiculous reverse logic. Like the 'miracle' that we are born, because of the 'billions' of other sperm that could have fertilised the egg. 'Someone' had to get there first. Obviously all the 'possible humans' who missed out aren't going to be around to think about it. Duh! Or the 'logic' that there is only one chance in billions of winning the lottery therefore no one can. Absurd. We all know that someone does, indeed, win the lottery. That person must think there's a god who 'fine tuned' things for them to win lol.
Besides, in an infinite 'multiverse' there will be an infinite number of 'universes' that have no life in them (or stars, or planets), and which pop out of existence almost instantly. Not very 'fine tuned' those ones

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:19 amLike the 'miracle' that we are born, because of the 'billions' of other sperm that could have fertilised the egg.

You don't see yourself as a miracle. How sad. You are, you know (a miracle).

in an infinite 'multiverse'

There's no such animal. There's even less evidence for multiverse than there is for eternal universe (that is: there's less than nada, zero, zilch).

There's one universe. It's finite in span and life. It, the universe, is mostly empty. What little substance it has is mostly hydrogen. You, my dear, dear veg, in this big, mostly empty universe of ours, are a Grade-A, Top Of The Line, miracle.

I see that you have all the answers. All those physicists might as well pack up shop then. We have Henry's 'theory of everything' (which looks a heck of a lot like, 'god did it')...

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:58 amAll those physicists

Those scientists have untested, and in some cases, absolutely absurd theories. Some folks will do just about anything to avoid reality.

Unlike your 'theory' which has an abundance of evidence and equations to support it and isn't 'absurd' at all.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:06 am Unlike your 'theory' which has an abundance of evidence and equations to support it and isn't 'absurd' at all.

This...

There's one universe. It's finite in span and life. It, the universe, is mostly empty. What little substance it has is mostly hydrogen. You, my dear, dear veg, in this big, mostly empty universe of ours, are a Grade-A, Top Of The Line, miracle.

...is, to you, absurd, but an infinite multiverse is sensible.

How sad.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:12 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:06 am Unlike your 'theory' which has an abundance of evidence and equations to support it and isn't 'absurd' at all.

This...

There's one universe. It's finite in span and life. It, the universe, is mostly empty. What little substance it has is mostly hydrogen. You, my dear, dear veg, in this big, mostly empty universe of ours, are a Grade-A, Top Of The Line, miracle.

...is, to you, absurd, but an infinite multiverse is sensible.

How sad.

Well yes, if the predictions and experiments work out.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:15 pm
Thanks for that. It's the apparent conflict with 'free will' that I was wondering about. Sean Carroll doesn't seem to have any doubt that he's right.

Can you go into more detail about the conflict? I'm not sure I understand what conflict you think is there.

Which thing in particular are you talking about in regards to Sean Carroll? No doubt that he's right about what specifically? And do you doubt he's right?

Just repeating my request for clarity.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:08 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:15 pm
Thanks for that. It's the apparent conflict with 'free will' that I was wondering about. Sean Carroll doesn't seem to have any doubt that he's right.

Can you go into more detail about the conflict? I'm not sure I understand what conflict you think is there.

Which thing in particular are you talking about in regards to Sean Carroll? No doubt that he's right about what specifically? And do you doubt he's right?

Just repeating my request for clarity.

I didn't say he's right, I said he's very sure that he's right. There are parts that I don't find convincing. He is quite vague about which 'decisions' create new worlds and which don't. Why would some do this and not others? I'm waiting for one of his books to arrive so it might be a bit clearer after that.
I'm asking, if we don't have free will, then how does decision making even come into it if the outcome was determined before any 'decision making' took place. Is 'observation' what we think of as 'decision making'?

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:50 am
I didn't say he's right, I said he's very sure that he's right. There are parts that I don't find convincing. He is quite vague about which 'decisions' create new worlds and which don't. Why would some do this and not others? I'm waiting for one of his books to arrive so it might be a bit clearer after that.
I'm asking, if we don't have free will, then how does decision making even come into it if the outcome was determined before any 'decision making' took place. Is 'observation' what we think of as 'decision making'?

Can you link to the things Sean Carroll said that you're talking about in regards to decisions creating worlds? I don't believe that was in my link, so you must have read it or heard it somewhere else.

It's not my understanding that decisions create new worlds at all, so I'd be real curious to read it directly as Sean Carroll wrote or said it.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:01 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:50 am
I didn't say he's right, I said he's very sure that he's right. There are parts that I don't find convincing. He is quite vague about which 'decisions' create new worlds and which don't. Why would some do this and not others? I'm waiting for one of his books to arrive so it might be a bit clearer after that.
I'm asking, if we don't have free will, then how does decision making even come into it if the outcome was determined before any 'decision making' took place. Is 'observation' what we think of as 'decision making'?

Can you link to the things Sean Carroll said that you're talking about in regards to decisions creating worlds? I don't believe that was in my link, so you must have read it or heard it somewhere else.

It's not my understanding that decisions create new worlds at all, so I'd be real curious to read it directly as Sean Carroll wrote or said it.

Then what is it that you think creates the new worlds?

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:08 am Then what is it that you think creates the new worlds?

New worlds are the alternative to wave function collapse.

You do a quantum experiment, let's say it's a simple one with two possible results, maybe photon spin up or photon spin down. You measure the results, you see photon spin up - many worlds says, the part of the wave function for photon spin down also continues to exist, that's the "other world". (There's ostensibly an otherwise-identical version of you that saw the other quantum result)

Quantum measurements and interactions are the points at which worlds split.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:14 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:08 am Then what is it that you think creates the new worlds?

New worlds are the alternative to wave function collapse.

You do a quantum experiment, let's say it's a simple one with two possible results, maybe photon spin up or photon spin down. You measure the results, you see photon spin up - many worlds says, the part of the wave function for photon spin down also continues to exist, that's the "other world".

Quantum measurements and interactions are the points at which worlds split.

So no decision-making involved. Just 'observation'. Decision making is an illusion.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:21 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:14 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:08 am Then what is it that you think creates the new worlds?

New worlds are the alternative to wave function collapse.

You do a quantum experiment, let's say it's a simple one with two possible results, maybe photon spin up or photon spin down. You measure the results, you see photon spin up - many worlds says, the part of the wave function for photon spin down also continues to exist, that's the "other world".

Quantum measurements and interactions are the points at which worlds split.

So no decision-making involved. Just 'observation'. Decision making is an illusion.

I don't think it should be understood as saying anything one way or another about decision making. It's just physics.

I wouldn't describe decision making as an illusion

Sean Carroll believes in free will, of a sort, but that belief is independent of his understanding of quantum physics. It's compatible with his understanding of physics, but independent of it

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:22 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:21 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 9:14 am

New worlds are the alternative to wave function collapse.

You do a quantum experiment, let's say it's a simple one with two possible results, maybe photon spin up or photon spin down. You measure the results, you see photon spin up - many worlds says, the part of the wave function for photon spin down also continues to exist, that's the "other world".

Quantum measurements and interactions are the points at which worlds split.

So no decision-making involved. Just 'observation'. Decision making is an illusion.

I don't think it should be understood as saying anything one way or another about decision making. It's just physics.

I wouldn't describe decision making as an illusion

Sean Carroll believes in free will, of a sort, but that belief is independent of his understanding of quantum physics. It's compatible with his understanding of physics, but independent of it

'It's just physics' is very broad. Why so many different theories that all seem to be equally plausible?