Sure, one of those worlds may contain a unicorn, but it would have to be shown that it does to meaningfully discuss it; same with the flying. As for the invisibility part, that sounds like an amphiboly. I've never seen my liver either, but I don't think I can call it invisible based on that. — InPitzotl
MWI doesn't posit that everything you can think of happens. You need to show there actually is a part of the universal wave function with unicorns on it; otherwise you're just fantasizing. It's the same speculative leaps you would have from positing if there's a planet somewhere in the universe with unicorns on it.Can you see these other worlds posited by MWI? — Olivier5
In relation to the human condition, such as morality, the irrationality of our existence lies exactly in the fact that the initial state of the environment are contingent. I agree that our human sensibilities may not be grounded in the natural law, and instead be product of arbitrary initial circumstances. That can most certainly be true and I am inclined to be absurdist in that sense for sure.You call it absurd, I don't. I'm just saying that human beings are contingent. They could never had appeared, or be different than they are. Therefore their reason, our reason, which has at least some natural, evolutionary basis, could also be different. It's at least possible that it be contingent. Otherwise what? God gave us the Logos? — Olivier5
MWI doesn't posit that everything you can think of happens. You need to show there actually is a part of the universal wave function with unicorns on it; otherwise you're just fantasizing. — InPitzotl
But if you are proposing that the natural law is completely impossible to internalize homomorphically — simeonz
that as long as indeterminism doesn't include the notion of propensities, it is testable by a finite collection of observations. QM is a different kind of indeterminism, — simeonz
But if some such representation is possible by any species, then the world is approximately deterministic, at least on the necessary scale. And if that is true, then the neurological processes are governed by deterministic laws (assuming they are not influenced by microscopic interactions sufficiently.) — simeonz
It doesn't. At least not in physics. That was just to clarify that QM non-determinism isn't just some arbitrary outcome. It includes underlying properties (it is counterfactually definite), which make it statistically predictive.Ah okay. I guess I go by the QM typethen. Didn't know a form of indeterminism existed that did not function with probabilities. — Olivier5
Well, then you understand why I don't consider it the opposite of determinism. It still has predictive utility. And consequently it makes certain processes very reliable, whether they can be completely determined or not. So, I doubt that free will can rest on that. Or that we can claim that the prediction-based model of the world is just a fairy tale.Rest assured that I am well aware of this. — Olivier5
I agree with that. This is how physics works. At least locally. Globally, as I said, we cannot discuss. (I am not alluding to superluminal effects, but to some property that is feature of the initial conditions of the universe and cannot be measured other then by the outcome of the quantum interactions. This is meaningless to talk about, because it is undetectable.)But that's the thing: indeterminism never ever pretended that the world was pure chaos. It just says that the future is not fully determined by the past. — Olivier5
So, I doubt that free will can rest on that. — simeonz
But don't you think that lack of determinism within spatially and temporally confined setups, as in the double-slit experiment, is not the same as the suggestion that the universe is not pre-determined. It is just evidence, that it not predictable using the locally acting physical laws. I am not claiming that we can even discuss determinism vs non-determinism other then locally, but I am making the point that we cannot call the universe non-deterministic. It is more accurate to call it locally unpredictable."That" is indeterminism, a metaphysical view of a universe open to novelty, where opportunities happen, where time is not wholly redundant.
It's not about total chaos, it's about letting a little lash between the big wheels of determinism, a little play without which those big wheels won't turn. — Olivier5
I am making the point that we cannot call the universe non-deterministic. It is more accurate to call it locally unpredictable. — simeonz
If it's locally unpredictable, it is no-deterministic in that sense of the word. — Olivier5
It may still be called deterministic in the sense that some predictions can be made at macro scale. Like we can predict that the sun will become a red giant at some point, but not who will win the lottery tomorrow. — Olivier5
Why are claiming that the person is not their convictions, values and intentions. Are you suggesting dualism? If you are not, what do you propose is the person? — simeonz
But you are asking me to equate my personal accountability and responsibility to a coin toss, i.e. the aforementioned physical freedom. I think that the two are completely unrelated. — simeonz
What is or isn’t a “gigantic claim” is a matter of personal preference. Burden of proof already assumes that your position is the “default”. There is no such thing. — khaled
Well, then you understand why I don't consider it the opposite of determinism. It still has predictive utility. And consequently it makes certain processes very reliable, whether they can be completely determined or not. So, I doubt that free will can rest on that. Or that we can claim that the prediction-based model of the world is just a fairy tale. — simeonz
Human cells are made of many quantum particles. Neurons and synapses are made of many quantum particles. Admittedly neurotransmitters are not made of as many particles, but to my understanding a few dozen neuroreceptors need to be stimulated simultaneously to cause a neuron to fire. In other words, I doubt that the variance of the event is that significant. We don't accuse other objects at the macro-scale of acting as quantum particles, because the variability in the output of big aggregate systems is very small. Why do that for human beings? This seems rather selective and intentional on our part.Humans and quantum particles pretty much act in similar manner, which is no surprise since everything is quantum. — MondoR
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.