[ExI] Everett worlds

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 04:02, SR Ballard via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> I’m sorry but if free will is wrong then there is no crime or guilt. No
> motivation. People cannot change themselves, they are fully at the whim of
> outside forces and cannot be held accountable.
>
> Murderers were unable not to murder and therefore should not be punished.
> That’s a load of bull.
>

The type of free will that is wrong is incompatibilism, which holds that
our actions cannot be free if they are determined by prior events. Most
modern philosophers do not define free will this way, because it’s silly
and also because our actions are in fact effectively determined. And moral
and legal responsibility REQUIRE that our actions are determined.

SR Ballard
>
> On Aug 16, 2020, at 11:59 AM, Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020. Aug 16., Sun at 18:43, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 12:24 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Incidentally, we know from experiment that Bell's Inequality is
>>> violated, therefore we know for a fact that if an atom of Uranium decays
>>> now and not an hour or a century from now because of hidden variables those
>>> hidden variables can't be local. But if the universe is not local it's very
>>> hard for me to understand why we've been so successful at explaining so
>>> many things about it, it seems to me we would have to understand everything
>>> before we understood anything.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> John-
>>
>> Doesn't the fact that quantum effects are not a factor at a relatively
>> small size of matter explain why we are able to under as much as we have
>> been able to about the universe (classical physics, chemistry,
>> spectrography, even relativity)?
>>
>> I feel like once we get down to concepts like entanglement, it continues
>> to point to a very fundamental lack of understanding of what quantum
>> effects actually are showing us.  For me, non-local effects remain one of
>> the more baffling aspects of quantum mechanics, although the entire theory
>> would be hard to believe in any interpretation of it if we didn't have
>> experimental evidence of it.
>>
>> The idea of needing an observer to collapse a wave has always bothered
>> me, but I also don't like the idea that the many world's hypothesis seems
>> very hard to test.
>>
>> Are there any good recent books presenting the latest quantum theory that
>> are non-mathematician friendly, yet still scratch the surface?
>>
>>
> Sean Carroll’s last book Something Deeply Hidden is good. Carroll is an
> Everettian.
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20200817/4533b1af/attachment.htm>