[ExI] Many Worlds (was: A Simulation Argument)

[Lee Corbin]

Rafal writes

>> So let's rehearse the river analogy again. When the Mississippi
>> "splits" at the delta, is a given small branch "created"?  Or should
>> we say that the water-stream that constitutes it already previously
>> existed (upstream) but merely became distinguished?  While the
>> words may not suit us well, I believe the idea to be internally
>> consistent, and even easily visualizable.
> 
> ### I have been pondering the issue of "branching" (overall measure of
> trajectories stays the same at all points along a dimension) vs.
> "splitting" (overall measure increases along a dimension), and I tend
> to favor the splitting interpretation. If every quantum event has an
> infinity of outcomes, all of which exist in the Platonic plenum, then
> one can choose a dimension along which the cardinality of the number
> of states increases continuously (and we are talking here about an
> infinite-dimensional object).

As you admit, it's tricky reasoning about infinite quantities.

> More likely than not I am off by a few
> infinities here or there, since my grasp of mathematics beyond
> arithmetics is rather shaky. Still, I would contend that the measure
> of worlds increases with time, and not only that - the measure
> increases by an infinity at every quantum event.

It seems intuitive to me that some kind of conservation should
apply. 

Now I know, for example, that we are far beyond the realm of 
free will vs. determinism, but still, suppose that we can decide
whether or not to cause branching.  (It's not unreasonable---if
as Tipler and others suggest someday humanity or our descendents
have a great deal to say about the disposition of the entire universe,
then we may indeed be able to dictate how quiescent the whole
thing is, or how often occur the incidents which cause "branching".)

If so, it somehow seems basically unreasonable that we could at
will double, say, the "mass" of the whole universe, as has bothered
many people who consider to discrete branching.

Lee

> Alternatively, it could turn out that conscious existence is defined
> in (requires only) finite sets. Quantum events would have only a
> finite, if large, number of outcomes. Then, progression through time
> would have a simple measure, a combinatorial explosion of states,
> again more of a "splitting" phenomenon.