[ExI] Free will and quantum phenomena self-confirm

[scerir]

Stathis wrote:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665/?nlid=3434
> The article talks about "free will" but what it is actually referring
> to is randomness. If the experimenters' choice is not random then the
> mysterious nature of entanglement disappears. According to the MWI of
> QM, the experimenters' choice is not random but completely determined.
> It just seems random from the first person perspective because you
> don't know which copy you are.


If, according to MWI, the result of my passing a silver atom through an 
S-G magnet depends on the existence - somewhere - of many, even infinite 
copies of the whole experiment, then one might as well accept the non-
locality 
of the orthodox interpretation -- that would be more parsimonious.

s.

   “When he died, his heirs found nothing save chaotic manuscripts. 
His family, as you may be aware, wished to condemn them to the fire; 
but his executor – a Taoist or Buddhist monk – insisted on their 
publication.”
   “We descendants of Ts’ui Pˆen," I replied, "continue to curse that monk. 
Their publication was senseless. The book is an indeterminate heap 
of contradictory drafts.”
-Jorge Luis Borges, 'The Garden of Forking Paths'
( as quoted in 'One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts 
of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation.' by Adrian Kent
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624 )