It becomes a local observer illusion. Although you could salvage a global story in that the branching at least always increases in the future direction. But even that ain’t much given that unlimited branches can be conjured up at zero entropic cost ... apparently ... if you drink the MWI Kool-Aid.

But then even mechanical determinism doesn’t make metaphysical sense if it doesn’t admit to some kind of chance or spontaneity. That view over-determines causality as much as allowing MWI to run rampant with causal histories under-determines it.

Again, what determines the sequence of a set of traffic lights. Is it a physical determinism or an informational one? Or do you think causally the two are the same?

suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful. — fishfry

Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you.

Is the MWI, infinitary? — Posty McPostface

No, it's Unitary - always.

I'm talking about the fantastical story called MWI, a desperate attempt to save determinism. Does the story appeal to you? I mean an infinite number of worlds growing infinitely every moment? Should we consider this possibility before we consider God? — Rich

Many Worlds is just quantum mechanics interpreted realistically, like scientific theories generally are, rather than epistemically like Copenhagen theory.

Some notable achievements of thinking of QM in this way are: the Schrödinger equation, discovery of superposition, discovery of entanglement, discovery of decoherence, and the discovery of the quantum computer. Let's not forget, the discovery of the multiverse.

MW is also the only theory that attempts to explain what is going on in reality.

If you think that Copenhagen allows you to escape from determinism, you are quite wrong. Copenhagen is fully compatible with Superdeterminism.

Many Worlds is just quantum mechanics interpreted realistically — tom

Realistically?

Only a person who has never driven a car in their life believes that a traffic light can only be red, green, or yellow. I'm not going to think for you. — Rich

You are trying too hard to make something out of a very loose point that I tossed out as an illustration of the kind of example the OP might consider.

Again, what determines the sequence of a set of traffic lights. Is it a physical determinism or an informational one? Or do you think causally the two are the same? — apokrisis

You too.

OP asked a vague question then several posts later expressed uncertainty as to why he was not being understood. I suggested that he give a specific example, and tossed one out. The efforts of @Rich and @apokrisis to make a federal case out of this are way off target.

The point is too observe if one really wants to understand Nature. Nature doesn't behave like as answer to multiple choice questions.

The point is too observe if one really wants to understand Nature. Nature doesn't behave like as answer to multiple choice questions. — Rich

OP said nothing about that. You're tilting at a windmill where there's no windmill. You want to argue with me about a thesis I haven't put forth.

The efforts of Rich and @apokrisis to make a federal case out of this are way off target. — fishfry

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." :)

I answered to OP. I was merely pointing out that your observation about traffic lights was at best incomplete which then leads to further incomplete observations

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again." — apokrisis

Dude you're losing it. Again.

I answered to OP. I was merely pointing out that your observation about traffic lights was at best incomplete which then leads to further incomplete observations — Rich

I made no observation. I tossed out a casual example of the kind of specific example OP might be thinking of.

Unfortunately your casual example was incomplete which led to a incomplete have. Had you noticed that a traffic light event had totally unpredictable number of events (though some more probable than others), then we have a better understanding of nature. None of these happening in some fantasy MW universe.

That would be more convincing if the OP hadn't by then made it plain it was the MWI multiverse interpretation that motivated the thread.

So don't blame me for your poor reading skills.

I'll leave this thread in shame. Hope you guys have fun.

Realistically? — Rich

Realistically, this is about as close to an argument as you will ever get. Realistically, I might recommend some textbooks, but realistically, you are out of your depth.

Here's Nietzsche on free will and determinism.

"The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity’s excessive pride has
got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical
sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society
of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by
the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will”
and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his "enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is
basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify "cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks
naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts,
which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the “in-itself ” there is nothing like
“causal association,” “necessity,” or “psychological un-freedom.” There, the “effect” does not follow “from the cause,” there is no rule of “law.”
We are the ones who invented causation, succession, for-each-other, relativity, compulsion, numbers, law, freedom, grounds, purpose; and if we project and inscribe this symbol world onto things as an “in-itself,” then this is the way we have always done things, namely mythologically. The “un-free will” is mythology. " (Beyond Good and Evil)

Here's Nietzsche on free will and determinism. — Joshs

Do you have a point, or is this just a random cut-and-paste?

This is a cut-and-paste, but it's far from random. It states a radical view from the 1880's on the entanglement of empiricism and values which still hasn't been absorbed by most scientists.

This is a cut-and-paste, but it's far from random. It states a radical view from the 1880's on the entanglement of empiricism and values which still hasn't been absorbed by most scientists. — Joshs

Please explain.

I'll leave this thread in shame. — Posty McPostface

LOL! I think I'll join you.

Something which deterministic just has one outcome.