On 1/7/2025 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 21:55, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
On 1/7/2025 3:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 00:39, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
a écrit :
On 1/6/2025 1:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's just improbable, which is quite different from
absurd. Every hand of bridge I've been dealt was
improbable, but I never considered one absurd.
Brent
I understand your analogy with improbable bridge hands, but
I think the difference lies in the nature of "improbable"
versus "absurd" when we scale it to the entirety of
existence. The improbability of any specific bridge hand
exists within a defined framework with clear rules and
outcomes—it is improbable, but not absurd because we
understand the context.
In the case of existence, a single-world theory suggests
that out of infinite possibilities, only one outcome is
"realized." This is not just improbable—it's a rejection of
the inherent structure of possibility itself. Without a
multiverse or some equivalent explanation, the realization
of just one world feels like a singular, unexplained "bridge
hand" with no deck, no dealer, and no game. It's the
framework itself that becomes suspect.
With a many-worlds or "everything exists" perspective, there
is a structure that accounts for all possibilities,
including the one where "I am." It doesn't feel absurd
because existence is distributed across possibilities rather
than being inexplicably concentrated into one. The absurdity
for me isn't about odds; it's about the lack of explanatory
context in a single-world view.
Does that make sense?
Quentin
Single world theory says infinitely many worlds are possible
and this one exits. MWI says all the infinitely many
possible worlds exist and this is one of them. Of the two
statements the latter seems more absurd to me, since it's
postulating an infinity of worlds (each infinitely complex)
so that your experience can be reduced to just one random
selection from the infinitude. I understand the attraction
since it seems to reduce the work to be done by the random
selection to just placing you in the infinitude. In
comparison the one-world case is selecting a single world to
exist from the same infinitude of possible worlds. complexity
means making many random selections. Mathematically they are
equivalent: one selection among an infinitude. But one
postulates that the infinitude actually exists and you've
been selected to be in one; while the other says one has been
selected by Nature to exist and so you're in it. Having
infinities actually exist seems absurd to me. Having one of
many possibilities exist is implicit in the concept of
"possibility" as opposed to "certainty", so having one world
exist is not absurd. I think where your intuition is led
astray is in thinking of all the random choices that must
have been made to realize this particular world as compared
to just one random selection from all possible worlds...but
the two actually are choices from sets of the same size.
Brent
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Brent. I understand your
point, but I think the core of my issue with the single-world
theory lies in the fact that in such a framework, there is only
one realized history, one singular possibility that exists, while
all others remain unrealized and effectively non-existent. This
makes the concept of "possibilities" irrelevant in practice, as
they have no role or reality in the framework.
In contrast, a theory of information where consciousness emerges
from the structure of all possibilities, and where all
possibilities are realized (albeit perhaps with varying
proportions, like with a dovetailing running algorithm),
provides a coherent explanation for my "here and now." My current
experience is not singled out in an unexplained and arbitrary
way; it is one among the totality of possibilities.
From my perspective, the absurdity of a single-world theory is
that it assumes this one realized world exists without any
explanatory context for why this one, while dismissing the
entirety of unrealized possibilities as irrelevant. It’s not the
infinity of worlds in a many-worlds framework that I find
difficult; it’s the absence of a logical framework in the
single-world theory that makes it feel inconsistent or incomplete.
Does this help clarify my view?
Yes, basically you dislike the idea of randomness, that one thing
happens and all other possibilities do not. It is "without any
explanatory context for why this one" which is the essence of true
randomness...if it had an explanation it wouldn't be truly
random. In other words you only accept randomness as a corollary
of ignorance, as in classical physics. You feel better saying
everything possible has happened than saying */this/* has happened
at random.
Brent
Brent,
It's not about disliking randomness per se. What I find absurd is the
idea that only one possibility is realized, with no deeper context or
mechanism to account for it.
If there were something to account for it, it wouldn't be random. It
seems you only feel ignorance type randomness is not absurd.
If this single world is all there is, then possibilities are
meaningless—they don't exist, they're just abstract ideas with no
connection to reality.
Possibilities never exist. They are notional and so we refer to them as
possibilities rather than actualities. Their connection to reality is
that they were possible.
In a single-world theory, there is no framework that justifies why
this specific sequence of events unfolded and not another. It’s not
just random; it’s arbitrary to the point of being incoherent.
That's what I can't agree with. You seem to be making a distinction
without a difference. One sequence unfolding and not another with no
justification is exactly what random means. It is just random. Random
is arbitrary. To say it's incoherent seems to be just complaining that
it's randomness I don't like.
If only one world exists for all eternity, there’s no reason or
necessity behind this singular chain of events.
That's not quite right. Because QM is random doesn't mean
anything-goes. Most imaginable events have zero probability in QM,
that's why libraries have bigger fiction sections than physics sections. :-)
In contrast, a framework where all possibilities exist makes sense
because it doesn’t require this kind of arbitrary selection. My
experience is one of many, and the existence of "everything" naturally
explains why this experience is part of reality. A single-world theory
asks us to accept that out of an infinite set of possibilities, only
one was chosen—forever—and offers no explanation for that choice.
That’s what I find absurd.
OK. But you should reflect on why you don't find other randomness
absurd. Is it because you assume it's just ignorance and not truly random?
Brent
Quentin
Quentin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8951abad-254f-40ef-9300-d8bd53071fef%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8951abad-254f-40ef-9300-d8bd53071fef%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAruFaWZYdnCATNrxTXYbB7BfZ6n99Tj9p9zw6YWHtTuZw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAruFaWZYdnCATNrxTXYbB7BfZ6n99Tj9p9zw6YWHtTuZw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ddc0d2fc-3163-464f-aa6c-0aa5089ffae2%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ddc0d2fc-3163-464f-aa6c-0aa5089ffae2%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArKbMUu__4DQp_NzninfLsjac7gPvnrzZ3jAQvnBRVpjQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArKbMUu__4DQp_NzninfLsjac7gPvnrzZ3jAQvnBRVpjQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bbe650ad-29e2-42d7-bc6a-d852c84a4669%40gmail.com.
