[ExI] Everett worlds

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 00:04, Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Thanks John. Yours is the standard Everettian answer. Others dislike
> Everett’s fully deterministic QM because it leaves no room for free will.
> Some kind of post-decoherence selection could allow for free will in a
> quasi-Everettian framework.
>

There are various definitions of “free will” but if you use the
incompatibilist one, requiring that our actions be undetermined, Many
Worlds still allows for that because there is true randomness from the
first person perspective due to the impossibility of self-locating. Having
said that, we would not be able to function, or even survive outside of a
nursing home, if to a significant extent our actions were undetermined.

On 2020. Aug 16., Sun at 13:03, John Clark via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 6:01 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>> *> I'm researching Everett's quantum mechanics again. Is there any
>>> interpretation or variant of Everett that you are aware of where more than
>>> one but not all Everett worlds are real?*
>>>
>>
>> The great advantage of Everett's Quantum interpretation is the simplicity
>> of its assumptions, it says everything including conscious observers obey
>> the exact same laws of physics and evolve according to the purely
>> deterministic Schrodinger wave equation, all other quantum interpretations
>> stick in a whole bunch of additional ifs, buts and howevers at that point.
>> If some of the worlds allowed by Schrodinger are real and others are not then
>> additional rules and assumptions would be needed and that simplicity
>> would be destroyed. And there is no reason needed to stick in those
>> additional assumptions to explain experimental results. Somebody said
>> Everett is cheap with assumptions but expensive in universes, maybe so
>> but I think an idea that starts with simplicity but produces great
>> complexity is a sign of a good theory, Darwin's theory would be an example.
>> You should always get more out of a theory than you put in or it has no
>> point.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> extropy-chat mailing list
>
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> --
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200817/c29cb7da/attachment-0001.htm>