[ExI] Everett worlds

Giulio Prisco giulio at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 08:41:00 UTC 2020

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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.

Good point. I have never understood compatibilist free will. It seems
to me that if I am an automaton with a delusion of being a free agent,
I am still an automaton.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list