many-worlds fail

Originally posted by apathist
If you are referring to the coherence theory of truth, then I deny the MWI is coherent.
I don't give much of a care about the Copenhagen interpretation.

[b]Or are you arguing that it's predictions are identical to the Copenhagen Interpretation's? The answer to the latter is yes, since otherwise it wouldn't be quantum mechanics.
If a person finds ...[text shortened]... Because volition exists, and the universe is not a clockwork. But none of that concerns the op.[/b]

Well, since you are claiming MWI is a fail and you want a non-deterministic interpretation which rules out the de Broglie Bohm (dBB) interpretation, you must be supporting the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) or one of the related interpretations that has wavefunction collapse. So you should care about CI as otherwise you have an explanatory gap.

Quantum mechanics consists of a collection of mathematical rules for generating predictions of the outcomes of experiments and an interpretation of what it all means. Bohmian mechanics, which is an attempt to retain deterministic physics, should be empirically distinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI from now), it has a different mathematical structure to CI and MWI. MWI, CI and the von Neuman Interpretation (vNI) have the same mathematical structure, they just interpret what it all means differently. This means that they are not empirically distinguishable. If an interpretation has extra mathematical structure then it is not quantum mechanics, it's a different theory. That is what I mean by "isn't quantum mechanics".

You exist in one of the branches, your counterpart exists in the other. Your counterpart is identical to you in every respect except that he's thinking "it was spin +1" where you are thinking "it was spin -1". MWI deals with this perfectly well.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In my post that apathist was replying to I specified libertarian free will, in other words the unrestricted type, he's entitled to use the term "free will" in that context in his reply.

Fair enough, but I don't think he realises that other definitions exist, or is just too drunk to remember.
In my experience people who are desperate to prove the existence of free will simply haven't thought it through. The next point of discussion should be what libertarian free will actually is and why people behaving randomly should be desirable over people behaving predictably.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fair enough, but I don't think he realises that other definitions exist, or is just too drunk to remember.
In my experience people who are desperate to prove the existence of free will simply haven't thought it through. The next point of discussion should be what libertarian free will actually is and why people behaving randomly should be desirable over people behaving predictably.

A bit of unpredictability is an evolutionary advantage in a predator rich environment.

Originally posted by DeepThought
A bit of unpredictability is an evolutionary advantage in a predator rich environment.

But that surely isn't the actual conscious reason why [some] people desire people behaving randomly over people behaving predictably?
The actual conscious reason why [some] people desire people behaving randomly over people behaving predictably is because they fear that people behaving predictably deductively implies no 'free will'.
But that is an irrational fear because they haven't thought through what they mean by 'free will' which actually doesn't make any sense if one thinks randomness is part and parcel of it because, randomness, virtually by definition, is something you have no conscious control over and what is the meaning of 'free will' caused by something that you have no conscious control over? I mean, if all your conscious choices are determined by random events that you have no control over, that surely means you have no control over your conscious choices but then I presume you wouldn't call the ability of making those conscious choices your 'free will' if you insist 'free will' implies being causally in total control.

Originally posted by DeepThought
A bit of unpredictability is an evolutionary advantage in a predator rich environment.

Predictability has almost nothing to do with determinism. As you well know, something can be deterministic without being easily predictable.

Originally posted by DeepThought
[b]Well, since you are claiming MWI is a fail and you want a non-deterministic interpretation ...

No I don't. I'm saying the deterministic interpretation doesn't make sense when we track conscious experience.

...
You exist in one of the branches, your counterpart exists in the other. Your counterpart is identical to you in every respect except that he's thinking "it was spin +1" where you are thinking "it was spin -1". MWI deals with this perfectly well.

Yes. Until we try tracking conscious experience through the thought experiment.

It's like you haven't read my position. You certainly are making no effort to address it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Predictability has almost nothing to do with determinism. As you well know, something can be deterministic without being easily predictable.

Determinism has everything to do with predictability. When an event is not easily predictable, determinism does the god of the gaps thing. I guess you're cutting your losses on the op issue, and I'm interrupting your whistling in the dark.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fair enough, but I don't think he realises that other definitions exist, or is just too drunk to remember.
In my experience people who are desperate to prove the existence of free will simply haven't thought it through. The next point of discussion should be what libertarian free will actually is and why people behaving randomly should be desirable over people behaving predictably.

Or instead, how people behaving on purpose is desirable over people behaving because they have no choice.

You have lost your bid to reject the op position, so you earn a consolation prize. Set the parameters.

Originally posted by humy
...

I've asked you a question based on your own response, several times. I thought it was a good, useful, interesting question. Have you not seen it?

Originally posted by apathist
No I don't. I'm saying the deterministic interpretation doesn't make sense when we track conscious experience.

[quote]...
You exist in one of the branches, your counterpart exists in the other. Your counterpart is identical to you in every respect except that he's thinking "it was spin +1" where you are thinking "it was spin -1". MWI deals with this ...[text shortened]... nt.

It's like you haven't read my position. You certainly are making no effort to address it.

I've addressed your point repeatedly. You might consider the possibility that I don't agree with it rather than haven't read it properly.

Such beautiful symmetry! Which is destroyed when you track conscious experience. We existed prior to divergence. We exist after divergence, BUT ONLY IN ONE OF THE BRANCHES. That is the non-symmetrical reality that MWI fails to deal with. The other branches are just as full of people as this one, but none of them existed until after the divergence. We, on the other hand, existed prior to the divergence.

That is because you insist that the counterparts didn't exist in the past. Your position is akin to the following: there is no such thing as a tree because if we track back a branch it must be a different branch to the other branches all the way back. The problem is it isn't. It is only after the split that they diverge, before the split they are the same. Basically your attempt to track consciousnesses is faulty.

Originally posted by lemon lime
One of you is, the others couldn't care less... except for that quiet one sitting off to the side, he's always sober.

Oh, that one's a pot-head. All puffing and day-glo.

Originally posted by DeepThought... Your position is akin to the following: there is no such thing as a tree because if we track back a branch it must be a different branch to the other branches all the way back. [/b]

But i don't claim that minds and brains don't exist. Plus, if you track a branch back, it does happen to be a different branch to the other branches all the way back. Your objection makes zero * 2 sense.

Would it help if I cut and paste actual quotes from my posts? Especially if we bear in mind context? Or can you do a better job at research all by yourself?

Originally posted by apathist
But i don't claim that minds and brains don't exist. Plus, if you track a branch back, it does happen to be a different branch to the other branches all the way back. Your objection makes zero * 2 sense.

Would it help if I cut and paste actual quotes from my posts? Especially if we bear in mind context? Or can you do a better job at research all by yourself?

Where in my post did I suggest that you don't think minds and brains do not exist?

Originally posted by DeepThought...That is because you insist that the counterparts didn't exist in the past. ...

They absolutely did not exist prior to divergence. I have explained how we know that. But that issue is irrelevant to the op.

When a divergence occurs, why did we find ourselves in one particular branch - was that a necessary outcome? Was it impossible that we may have found ourselves in some other branch? (thx, tw). Was is the deterministic explanation for why we ended up down path a and not down path b.

Besides the conceit that hey, the path b guys are us too. That ship sank, so try harder.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Where in my post did I suggest that you don't think minds and brains do not exist?

Your analogy said ..."there is no such thing as a tree because..."