[deleted]

do we really know, for sure, as a proof or otherwise ?

couldn't there be an unexpected super cluster of primes at some prrviously unknown lagrangian like focal region of extremely large numbers.. or maybe a rules change in the general ditrubution of primes as we get into relatively unexplored ranges of numbers..

Interesting point about "most". I see how it works if you only consider a finite subset of integers (e.g. ratio restricted to < N), but is "most" still well defined if you consider the entire infinite sets together?

Physics isn't my expertise, so my understanding is surely off in some ways. My thinking was that we all exist in an uncollapsed superposition, but conscious observation is always with respect to a collapsed state. E.g. Each universe is a manifestation of a possible state in the overall multiverse superposition. You're saying though that the superpositions are never reduced, so would that mean no universe can be observed individually, only as a collective multiverse?

I admit it's not really a direct commentary on Many Worlds, but I do think the screenwriters began with the premise: "What kind of conflicts would characters encounter when facing a multiverse somewhat related to that of quantum mechanics?" Comparing to Dr Strange, they seem to have spent a lot more effort to inject philosophical comments and maintain a somewhat consistent ontology. I think Joy's and Waymond's character arcs only work when you include the metaphysical backdrop. They setup an initial conflict that nobody has free will, our universe is just a random possibility. Joy has lost her purpose in life from this fact and looks for Evalyn to try and convince her otherwise. Waymond's kindness speech to me was the revelation that the characters could still exert free will and "choose kindness" in every universe.

In any case, it got me thinking about metaphysics a bit more, so I'll take that as my personal interpretation of the film, even if it was only intended as a screwball film about family relationships.

the best part of this weed, is that it allows me to visualize the whole world at once, half awake, half asleep, all bullshiting themselves that tomorrow is a thing, but when you dont sleep like normal, you realize the depths of previous thinkers

Thank you for such a thorough answer, that makes sense

The many-worlds interpretation is physicist's way of making philosophical commentary on subjective awareness. The fact that this interpretation immediately descends into logical nonsense should show us that subjective awareness can never be described in logical, rational terms, or even through the apparently all-encompassing lens of physicalism. Any wave function collapse interpretation quickly becomes philosophical rather than empirical in nature (note that empiricism is a subset of philosophy, not something that philosophy is contained within).

>its ok to be ordinary because average people make the universe go round

I really didn’t read this in the movie’s messaging to be honest and I think it’d be kind of uncharitable to frame the movie’s approach to an “ordinary life” in these terms.

Nor do I think that it posits that people ought to be ordinary to enable or justify the existence of extraordinary people.

I think we watched different movies.

I think the movie’s approach to “ordinary” life is not utilitarian, that it is for something else, in fact the entire premise is to question the idea that any life is for something, even that of a movie star or a super-genius.

It reaches the same spot a lot of existential philosophy was at at the beginning of last century: meaning cannot be a function of something external to the self, be it a grand destiny like curing diseases or something humbler like being part of the average masses whose diseases are cured.

I can’t re-tread the development of absurdism in a reddit comment, but in short it’s something along the lines of an unresolvable contradiction that, through sheer stubborness we manage to resolve in little, random things. To borrow a metaphor, it’s to add one and minus one and get something other than zero.

That movie is a remake of the Matrix

Out of curiosity, how would Hintikka (or you if you share their views) justify axioms if not through intuitions? I am asking with the assumption that all knowledge is built upon axioms (which I can provide an argument for if necessary). It seems to me that intuitions are the only possible source of axioms and thus we must assume some connection between them and truth if we are to avoid scepticism, though I am still struggling with the nature of that connection... any insights would be appreciated.

I can't finish it!! About 2/3 through...

The philosophy is simple, communicate better with your family and its ok to be ordinary because average people makes the multiverse go round. lol

What good are geniuses and CEOs and presidents without billions of average people working on ordinary things?

I am by no means an expert on quantum physics so please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the double slit experiment is that the particle acts as a wave when unobserved and as a particle when observed. Such a conclusion is unintuitive (as mentioned earlier) because it implies that our observations can affect reality and that particles can act as both particles and waves under different circumstances. It seems a leap, however, to go from this point to arguing that it does both simultaneously (which would imply a contradiction). As far as I can tell, the only statement we can make is that it's nature is undetermined as it approaches the slit because it has the potential to be both a particle and a wave, but both are not actualized simultaneously.

Regardless, I would agree with the original argument that if something appears to violate the PNC, we should disbelieve it rather than disbelieving the PNC. The reason for this is that without the PNC everything becomes trivial. A tree is both a tree and not a tree. Everything is everything and nothing at once. Logic becomes impossible. As Aristotle would put it, we would become vegetables rather than human beings. If something appears to violate the PNC, then we should examine it closely and seek out any potential errors. Given that we are here dealing with empirical experiments that are at the forefront of science (and thereby not very well understood), I don't think we have any justification for believing the PNC is violated even if I have massively misrepresented the experiment and the article is right on that point.

To start with a little nitpick:

>Joy says that “most” universes are ones where life did not evolve, but you cannot have “most” of infinity.

You can have "most" of infinity. For example, most whole numbers are not prime, and both of those sets are (the same size of) infinite. Still, the ratio of the number of primes to the number of non-primes below a certain value is small (and tends to zero as that value tends to infinity).

Personally, I don't think Everything attempts to comment on Many Worlds in any meaningful way, because its multiverse is fundamentally unlike the one Many Worlds would predict. As you highlight, seemingly every universe in Everything contains some sort of version of the same characters, and they all have the same personalities deep down. For "every you is you" to be a meaningful statement means ruling out the vast majority of Many World universes that are populated by people a bit like you, but a bit like someone else. (And requires inserting a fundamental idea of a "person" that isn't emergent from particles.)

Fundamentally, Everything is a story about characters, not metaphysics, using wacky soft sci-fi as a backdrop. It aims to convey a message about love and relationships relevant to our single universe.

To address this:

>To me, I find the many-worlds interpretation is a way of ridding ourselves of the uncomfortable idea that the laws of physics are not deterministic. Having no answer to explain why a superposition reduces to one state and not another is disconcerting. Saying that a superposition does reduce to another state, except it occurs in a dual universe we cannot currently observe, is an easy way to remove the question altogether.

I think your take on Many Worlds is a little off. The interpretation is actually the idea that superpositions are never reduced, which naturally leads to a "multiverse". One is not invented arbitrarily. In terms of postulates it's actually the simplest way of stating quantum mechanics, because interpretations that make the wave function "collapse" require an extra rule that is mathematically ugly, not clearly defined, and doesn't even change the experimental results (to any extent that is currently measurable).

>[In MWI] We are just one sample in an infinite list of possibilities, so there is no meaning to why we happen to be in this state.

On the contrary, there is just as much or as little meaning (or "free will") in Many Worlds as in any single-universe model. (To circle back to the start:) Yes, there may be an infinite number of "you", but most of them will make the same sort of choices, derived from their biology and experiences, as you do. Only in a vanishingly small proportion of worlds will some freak quantum event have you acting counter to your own history.

[removed]

I think you're right, and this is a very powerful and down-to-earth philosophy.

The way I see it, Care is the spiritual currency, and that's basically what we choose to spend our time doing, feeling, and thinking

You know, I have also wondered this, if we all have our predetermined behavior or destiny, what about the people we consider with illogical thoughts, for example terraplanists, people who believe in astrology, among others. Do they have a function in the world?

Is not a certain amount of mental illness inevitable in the human species?

The movie would have certainly been less entertaining if it wasn't for the universe of the mind which it is way more vast than the real world. Most probably the infinite of the mind can't be real infinite but it sure is much more "infinite" than the actual real world "infinite". The absurdity of extremes is entertaining to delve jump into, as it is often draws some limits to truths.

But why not to have a mind that branches in terms of the probabilities created by the older mind?(the older you is creating the future you, it is not only the nature or physics) There could be a thousand or a million of choices, but they will all need to respect the past and the continuity of certain "laws" of our universe. So, i would say there are definitely never only "two" choices, but just a forever changing hierarchy of choices.

[removed]

I wrote this a bit ago, but decided to post it today as some might find it interesting, especially for those who have watched the movie recently. In the article, I'm analyzing what kind of theory of mind makes sense for the film, and similar discussions on free will and the multiverse. It is mostly informal, so should be a quick read.

People were a priori against the conclusions of his arguments so they couldn't bring themselves to understand his arguments, but nevertheless they criticized the arguments, mostly missing the point

If it's possible for a particle to both exist and not exist or to be in multiple positions at once, then those things are not contradictory propositions, even though they intuitively appear to be. Fundamentally, the principle of non contradiction describes logic, and not subatomic particles.

Determining what is and is not the most accurate picture of the world, along with what philosophy can and can’t justify, both presuppose some standard of truth and epistemic justification which anti-realism makes impossible.

[removed]

I recommend recommend Hintikka's The Emperor's New Intuitions (1999) for arguments why intuitions as a source of evidence are useless and a huge scandal in philosophy. Intuitions used to be a methodological shortcut in natural language syntax because native speakers have (to a certain extent, which used to be a bit exaggerated) a capacity to judge the grammaticality of sentences even in light of frequent performance errors. There is no evidence of such a capacity about philosophical matters. To be honest, I doubt a single "datum" could be discerned in philosophy that is established by intuitions about which other philosophers don't have intuitions to the contrary.

The use of "intuition" in contemporary philosophy illustrates the lack of a commonly agreed upon methodology and subject matter.