... and the impotent ones are not self aware sentient.

I would say that qualia is not explained by information alone. Is your computer happy when it beats you in chess? If yes, why not?

The "measurement problem" is not a problem scientists who measure things face, ... — boethius

Of course not. According to the Schrödinger-Newton-Equation, even the cat is big enough to cause a collapse. Together with the Bohmian Mechanics and the entanglement of measuring object and measuring apparatus (e.g. the cat) everything is explained. The cat is already in a defined state before looking. And the moon is also there when nobody looks. Nobody needs MWI.

Usually in these discussions what I am calling "a fork in the road" is called a branch in a graph of possible state changes.

What it means is simply that when a "wave collapses" and a value previously represented by a range of possibilities becomes one possibility ... — boethius

However, splitting into different possibilities again involves the definition of measurement, which is precisely what is to be avoided in the MWI. If I have defined what exactly a measurement is, then I can simply choose the Copenhagen Interpretation. The MWI would then be superfluous.

There's no wave collapse in MWI, as the idea there is all possibilities really exist in some physical definite state and new universes pop into existence every time there is a quantum fork in the road. — boethius

What exactly is a "quantum fork"?

One can discuss the question of free will for many miles. All unnecessary, because the question is wrongly posed. My will is free from what? That would be the right question. My will is free from the atoms on Sirius, but certainly not from the laws of nature.

Strange that it should be unsolved. The solution is the impossibility of practical execution. How could the prisoner prove that he is not surprised? He could claim it, but he could do that every day. If he claims it on Monday and is not killed, may he claim it again on Tuesday?

Each individual neuron doesn't think or feel anything, but combined, they are more than the sum of their parts. Your position is going to lead to the hard problem: if the parts of a person don't experience pain, but the person does, how does that work? Which parts are involved? What's their function? How do they combine to produce the experience of pain? Why pain and not some other experience? — RogueAI

Of course, no one can answer that these days. But maybe a picture will help. Consciousness is like superconductivity, it is there or not. If something is not right (too high temperature, too strong magnetic field), then the superconductivity disappears. The whole system is superconducting, not the single atoms.

If you have toothache, what good is the idea that it is an illusion?

If two people stand back to back and begin walking away from each other, the space between them is not expanding, all the is happening is the distance between them is increasing. — Present awareness

At first glance, this is correct. But the difference between an explosion and an expansion of space is the presence of inertial forces. With an explosion they are obviously present, with the space expansion they are not. The galaxies "swim" quasi in the expanding space and feel no inertial forces.

"Latest" I wrote. But the truth is a combination of Bohmian Mechanics and the Schrödinger–Newton equation causing the collaps. It depends in the mass of the measuring apparatus. The cat is heavy enough.
— SolarWind

Fair enough. Is that different to the Penrose interpretation? — Andrew M

Yes. The Bohm-Schrödinger-Newton interpretation does not need the general relativity. The particles move according to Bohm, entangle with the measuring apparatus, this localizes itself over its own gravity and acts back over the entanglement, which causes the collapse. At 10^10 atomic mass units, the transition is quantum mechanical-classical according to SN equation.

OK, so consciousness causes collapse, on your view? Or something else? — Andrew M

"Latest" I wrote. But the truth is a combination of Bohmian Mechanics and the Schrödinger–Newton equation causing the collaps. It depends in the mass of the measuring apparatus. The cat is heavy enough.

But the thought experiment is not about what the cat observes, it's about where the line is drawn (if at all) for when a system stops being in a superposition of states. — Andrew M

The line is my consciousness at the latest, because I experience only one world.

"the photon still interacts with the apparatus at the slits"
— Andrew M

Not the photons passing the slits. — Olivier5

And what about the many neutrinos that are flowing through the earth, and what about the virtual particles?

Van der Waals forces are inter molecular. Gravity does not affect light. — Olivier5

Matter is an antenna for electromagnetic waves via displacement of charge distribution (Van der Waals) and partially absorbs the EM waves.

With gravitation the deflection of light is known.

I would assume that the photon behaves as a wave until it interacts with something, at which point somehow it behaves as a particle. — Olivier5

That is childish. An interaction always exists: The Van der Waals forces from the laboratory, the natural radioactivity and the gravity of the earth.

MWI isn't proposing that anything different happens with wavefunctions than that they evolve in accordance with Schrodinger's Equation. — InPitzotl

Oh sorry. I actually thought "many worlds" had something to do with many worlds. And in every book about MWI it says that they divide at a measurement. But maybe you are talking about something completely different.

"The MWI supporters claim the world divides when the states are decohered. But decoherence is an exponentially decreasing process that is theoretically never complete. Therefore already the basic assumption is wrong and the MWI can be thrown into the garbage can."
— SolarWind
That does not follow. — InPitzotl

What does not follow from what?

"This may be true if the probability is 0.5 vs 0.5. What if we wait shorter for the radioactive element to decay and the ratio is 0.58 (living cat) vs 0.42 (dead cat)? How many SA2 and SB2 are there then?"
— SolarWind
Still two, or many. It depends on how you resolve the fact that the BR appears to work in MWI, and that's something I'm not sure how to do... possibly that's a good reason not to buy into it, or maybe it's just something beyond my scope. — InPitzotl

It's even worse. The MWI supporters claim the world divides when the states are decohered. But decoherence is an exponentially decreasing process that is theoretically never complete. Therefore already the basic assumption is wrong and the MWI can be thrown into the garbage can.

Let's say S1 is Schrodinger before opening the box, SA2 is Schrodinger who opens the box seeing a living cat; SB2 is Schrodinger who opens the box seeing a dead cat. — InPitzotl

This may be true if the probability is 0.5 vs 0.5. What if we wait shorter for the radioactive element to decay and the ratio is 0.58 (living cat) vs 0.42 (dead cat)? How many SA2 and SB2 are there then?

MWI is just saying as with the cat, so with Schrodinger. — InPitzotl

I cannot see myself as a quantum object. What determines in which of the many worlds I am? It makes a difference to me whether I win the jackpot or one of my many copies.

"Why are we classic? Isn't that a contradiction to MWI, where everything is quantum mechanical?"
— SolarWind
No, it's in the wavefunction. — InPitzotl

I don't understand a word, can't it be more detailed?

Don't look at the many worlds, because that's not the assumption; the worlds are just perspectives. They're descriptions to classical beings like us. — InPitzotl

Why are we classic? Isn't that a contradiction to MWI, where everything is quantum mechanical?

The plain proof of Free Will is the feeling of choices made, ... — Ash Abadear

That is the only sentence to be said on this subject.

The feeling of having wanted something is the only criterion. It does not depend on det or indet.

The idea that something we are aware of, such as being conscious, could be an epiphenomenon is a contradiction in terms. Our being aware of it means that it cannot be an epiphenonemon, which is defined as a phenomenon having no effect, because it has the effect of making us aware of it. — Janus

Qualia, for example, is not a pure epiphenomenon, but a mixture. You cannot explain the color "yellow" to a color blind person, but you can say that it is a bright color.

That makes no sense to me. I don't feel the feelings of some Chinese in far away China and if I don't meet him he is as present for me as life on a distant planet.

Whereby the question arises, why you still accept other consciousnesses than the own one and these should also have a boss (God).

I'm not saying it's in *your* imagination. It's in God's Mind. The Infinite All-Pervading Unoriginate Consciousness. It's partially in your mind, because your mind forms certain qualia of reality, sure, but it's in God's Mind. — Dharmi

Actually, I wanted to present a world view without a God. Why do so many people need an almighty boss? Aren't the paradoxes of an omnipotent God enough to refrain from it?

What is a person? What defines a person? This, I believe, is where we should begin in order to resolve the problem that has you and me in its grips. — TheMadFool

Take That!

The last question seems to be self-refuting. The "you" refers to mind and not the body. Ergo, it's ok within this framework of identity to have two bodies with the same mind. — TheMadFool

You picked one out of three points and answered it with a counter question. You don't have to answer the counter question to realize that it is nonsense to have two separate bodies. One body is in NY and the other in LA. Can they then communicate telepathically as the same mind?

What makes identical twins different persons? — TheMadFool

1) They have different locations.
2) They change on a molecular level within seconds.
3) Can you imagine having two bodies?

"Of course this is wrong. If the 3D printing process created two persons, both believing being original, which one would you be after awaking?"
— SolarWind

Yes, there will be two bodies and two minds presumably but both would be the same person. If you disagree you have a heavy burden on your shoulders which is, to be blunt, to inform us, possibly prove, what you mean by person i.e. what makes you you? — TheMadFool

I cannot answer what makes me me, but I am sure that it is not possible to fall asleep and wake up in two bodies.

If you would have two bodies being a double agent would be an easy game. :)

In both cases what decides the identity of the person is memory. — TheMadFool

Of course this is wrong. If the 3D printing process created two persons, both believing being original, which one would you be after awaking?

That is certainly correct, only it is of little use to me to only imagine my food, I will still remain hungry. Sure, the world could exist only in my imagination, but why should I imagine such a tedious world? In my imagination, I would just be happy forever.

Somewhere the quantity of the qualia must come from. Either it is hidden in a soul or in the matter. If one assumes, it is in the matter and in addition in every particle, then every particle must possess the quantity of the qualia. It depends now on where this particle is. If it is in a stone, then it will feel little to nothing. If it is in a living being, then it can feel the state of him.

Wait for a while, then drop it at a time determined only by your mind without any other influence. If you are capable of doing this, then you know that you have free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Free will is a feeling, nothing more. It can be predetermined or coincidence. Actions cannot come from free will. Free will is not a force.

Exactly right. Det or indet do not play a role in the question about the freedom of will. In general, everything mentioned does not play a role, because the question is wrongly put. From WHAT is the will free? Certainly not from the laws of nature.

Well, the
Teletransportation Paradox is solved with the "crazy idea". You are the one with YOUR particle in your body. If you are beamed it depends where YOUR particle remains. Every particle has its own qualia and is also a "soul".

It is logical that I do not only choose work based on wages, because it is an exchange of labor for money. If I'm supposed to wipe out acid tanks for ten times the money, it might not be a good choice. But I have to earn a minimum amount to cover my costs.

What would your pizza delivery company say if you explained to them that money is not important and that you want the pizza for free. The matter is a lie.

What I would do if I had an "infinite" amount of money, I cannot answer that, it is too far removed from my situation, but certainly not working all day.

A value is a quantity. When I order things, it is an order. On the question "enemy or family" I will probably prefer family most of the time. :)

And the thing about the unvalue of money is hypocritical. What else do people work for?