AG, The issue isn’t just that true randomness is unintelligible; it’s that in a single-world framework, there is no such thing as true randomness. Randomness implies a selection from a set of possibilities, but if only one world exists, there is no set—only the one outcome. Without an ensemble of possibilities, the concept of randomness collapses. There’s no mechanism, no process, no "roll of the dice." The single history simply is, with no justification for why it is this and not something else.
In contrast, randomness in frameworks like QM operates within a structure where multiple possibilities exist, even if only probabilistically. But a single-world theory denies the existence of any ensemble. It renders the idea of “random selection” meaningless because there’s nothing to select from. This isn’t about whether randomness has rules; it’s about whether the concept of randomness even applies when there’s only one realized possibility for all eternity. This is why I find the single-world framework fundamentally incoherent. It doesn’t just lack explanatory power—it undermines the very concepts it relies on to describe itself. Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 23:59, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 at 3:47:24 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 23:40, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > On 1/7/2025 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 21:55, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > On 1/7/2025 3:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mar. 7 janv. 2025, 00:39, Brent Meeker <meeke...@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 > > > > Brent, > > I see your point, but I think we’re addressing randomness on different > levels. Randomness in the sense of "ignorance of the underlying cause" > doesn’t bother me because it implies there is an underlying structure we > simply don’t fully understand. It leaves room for deeper explanations. But > true randomness—an event or selection with no cause or reason at all—feels > fundamentally incoherent to me. It’s not just that I dislike it; it seems > to contradict the idea of a structured reality. > > > You don't like true randomness because it's unintelligible to human > understanding. It has no rules, which is one of the reasons Einstein never > accepted QM. If it had rules, it would be deterministic. AG > > > In a single-world framework, the realization of only one possibility is > not just random—it erases the significance of all other possibilities > entirely. If they never actualize, they are as good as nonexistent, > rendering the concept of “possibility” meaningless. Calling them "notional" > doesn’t address the absurdity of why this one possibility, and no other, > should exist for all eternity. It’s not just a matter of probability; it’s > a deeper philosophical problem about the nature of existence. > > In a multiverse framework, all possibilities are actualized. My > experience, then, is part of a broader, coherent structure where > possibilities have meaning because they are realized in different contexts. > It avoids the arbitrary singling out of one world. This isn’t about > avoiding randomness—it’s about finding an explanatory context for existence. > > As for QM, I agree that most "imaginable" events have zero probability, > but even there, probabilities exist within a framework. A single-world > theory goes beyond probabilities—it implies an arbitrary, one-time > realization of a specific history without any framework to account for why > this one. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make. It’s not just > randomness; it’s the absence of coherence that I find troubling. > > Quentin > > > 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-li...@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-li...@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-li...@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-li...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bbe650ad-29e2-42d7-bc6a-d852c84a4669%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bbe650ad-29e2-42d7-bc6a-d852c84a4669%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/c06f0368-e002-4181-82fe-d8ed39d9a18dn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c06f0368-e002-4181-82fe-d8ed39d9a18dn%40googlegroups.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/CAMW2kApYjVjSFAgSqJFaqG-yE82o%3DaZc7qS1JHxAQEdsHOvWXw%40mail.gmail.com.
