Yeah, that was my thought exactly. It's an exploration of existentialism, with a focus on absurdism, that simply uses a sci-fi multiverse setting to illustrate its points.

Hell, you can very easily interpret all the multiverse stuff as metaphor that never actually occurred in the primary universe of the movie, and the fundamental plot (re: the existentialist journey and resolution of familial trauma) is still there. To me, it was essentially an absurdist dialogue illustrated through sci-fi, and to that end, I found it to be incredibly clever.

Physics will be and is increasingly being applied to biology and the brain, so it's not necessarily sci-fi thinking even though I think the idea of multiverse is sci-fi thinking since we can't prove it anyway. We know a lot about the brain for the past 300 or so years of research that has gone into it but who knows if that's a lot or nothing depending on the future of these disciplines - we've not scratched the surface of a lot of things, things that require huge interdisciplinary approaches and in some cases revolutionary thinking and engineering. The idea of quantum states being mediated by brains is a working hypothesis by some* physicists in an attempt to try and explain emergence. And I've used this example before but appropriating the idea of bit flips to brains/biology and even interactions across the universe, sure there'd be repetition, but repetition of exact same elements, evolutions, and histories? Can only see that as unlikely unless there truly is infinity "out there"; the chances of the same/similar things happening become close to zero but not zero (ever with infinity). And in the end, imo this whole thread is pretty speculative.

Your comment seems kinda off. MWI isn’t a philosophical commentary. It’s a proposed solution to an empirical issue with quantum mechanics. It’s an interpretation of results we see in experiments. It’s entirely logical, not nonsense at all.

‘Any wave function collapse interpretation quickly becomes philosophical’ - one of the absolutely key tenets of MWI is that the wave function doesn’t collapse. Feels like you’re speaking about something you’ve not quite understood.

Not really understanding what you’re trying to say about subjective awareness or what you’re proposing that is tbh.

[removed]

>The lesson is just that you can’t define frequencies or proportions in infinite sets that lack natural orderings. The number line is the exception, not the rule.

You may need to explain a bit more, because as a mathematician that just seems plain wrong:

You can define sets of any proportion on any bounded set of R^n (an infinite set with no natural ordering for n > 1). That's a very basic thing in Measure Theory. For example you can just generalize the Cantor set to any dimension to get an infinite set of points that has no volume.

Edit: just some minor correction of my part

This one I like, behead the others lol

As someone with some similar life experiences and worldviews to Kwan, these responses really make it clear why I find it so hard to explain my perspective to some people

Yeah, you bring up some great points. Honestly I would want to go the opposite direction though and compare growth rates of functions, many classes of which tend to infinity but at vastly different rates.

I totally tried to get a better example but then went on a wiki binge and got lost around the page of hyperbolic growth which contrasts itself against exponential and logistic growth then found my way to robert miles again,....

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I've seen this so many times and I never understand how you guys get to this conclusion. The initial conflict is that Joy needs her mother to see and love her in a way that she can feel. Joy has been traumatized and after seeing the reality of the misery of the worlds, have lost hope that human existence is worthy of her living in it. She still searches for an Evelyn among the worlds, one that can see and love her even though it's irrational based on her worldview because humans are irrational creatures and love is an irrational emotion. At the end, Evelyn acknowledges that nothing makes sense and the good moments are fleeting and not guaranteed, but stay around anyway because I'm choosing to stay for you.

Yes, Waymond is an influence in getting Evelyn to understand differing perspectives and that there are other ways of surviving than hers, but taking his approach she almost lets Joy go because that's what she asked her to do That's not where they end up though, and that's not presented as the "right" answer. At the end, she comes back, does explicitly the opposite of what Joy told her to do, tells Joy she's also been a bit of an ass, and pushes in the way that Evelyn has always done, but this time with a better pespective behind it.

This has always been a movie about the complicated relationship between immigrant mother and her daughter and the world they exist in, but for some reason, so many analysis of the movie comes back to Waymond has the answer, Waymond is right, they just needed to listen to Waymond. Well Waymond has been around in the family for the whole fucking time hasn't he??? But Waymond doesn't seem to have been able to address Joy's issues at all?? That doesn't mean he's wrong or responsible, but it does mean that I side eye all the people who wants to valorise Waymond while dismissing all of the rich dynamic and love and resentment and misunderstandings and story between Evelyn and Joy

[deleted]

[deleted]

Could just limit ourselves to the space of measurable sets. Seems like the natural approach since we're dealing with notions like "most" (almost), "frequent" (probability) here. And it doesn't seem immediately clear why we would need unmeasurable sets for the multiverse.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I don’t see a flaw. If we can grant the possibility of an arrangement of matter that somehow mirrors human consciousness as it exists in our current universe in rocks, then I think it’s fair that given infinite variations that some of these universes will contain rocks with the exact same form of consciousness as Evelyn’s. It’s absurd but is logically consistent with MWI. If we don’t grant that possibility- I would simply ask .. why not? It’s not like modern science has a firm enough grasp on human consciousness to rule it out.

I think what you write about themes of depression and suicide is well written and an important part of the film. I suppose I have just generally left those themes as an unspoken assumption when I mention themes of absurdism, as the question of suicide is a core tenet of Camus absurdism.

So are you believing that the rock world was still somehow a physical evelyn? Cause I see that as a major flaw in your reasoning.

And im surprised no one here is talking about the obvious depression and shame that led Joy to feeling so lost. I felt the whole movie was her searching for a universe that could explain why she felt worthless because if things outside of her control. Then she seeks what everyone does, comforting. Whether in the acceptance of a loved one, or in leaving it all behind, they just took it to a very extreme sci-fi level. It wasnt just suicide, it was ending all of her, everywhere, all at once. The pain if life and the reality that it will be there no matter what choices she makes, make her angry and want to bring the attention of others to the answer she found. Which is that the universe is fucked and not worth existing in. She finally finder her mother who understands and fights to change, but the pain is so deep that she thinks it would be better of her mother joined her in death. Why wouldnt someone want to free their entire existence from pain? And once you've settled that suicide is freedom from pain, its pretty difficult to win you back.

Maybe I've just known too many people who have commit suicide because if feeling there was nothing for them in life, no joy, no hope, no comfort. The idea of exploring an endless number of possible different lives and still finding the same end result would only further that need to just end it.

Can always tell who has recently take calc 2 and who hasn't in these conversations... or continued to use calc 2 in their professions.

Not even slightly

[deleted]

Thank god I learned Taoism from Alan watts lectures, sex magic??? Tf.

i agree with your decision to bring lebesgue measure into the conversation of "most", but i dont think that's the best example since the rationals have lebesgue measure as well as cardinality less than the reals.

a better example may be the cantor set and the reals: they have the same cardinality and yet the cantor set is measure zero where of course the reals have infinite measure. i think it's simple and fair to say that if "life" universes make up something like the cantor set to the reals, you have a very solid interpretation of "most" universes not having life at all.

Actually I don't think the movie is masquerading as anything. I think it is what it is. A fun and chaotic movie with some stuff about relationships. I don't think it tries to pretend to be particularly deep. I mean a giant blackhole bagel as the source of all evil or whatever?

I think it is important to separate the movie, its actors and those who wrote and produced it from the awards ceremony that is placating the masses in order to win over views on an awards show that no longer has the same grip on the publics imagination as it once did.

Everyone likes a feel good story, so the Oscars produced a couple this year and it was popular and it worked.

It doesn't mean the movies that are a a part of that production are any less for it.

Are there going to be articles and fluff pieces trying to paint these productions as more than they are? Probably. Does it mean they aren't actually good or that they have some depth or anything worth appreciating? Absolutely not.

Lots of people will get annoyed at the recipients of these cynical backroom manipulations - but I think that's silly. Just because the feel good story was manufactured doesn't mean it doesn't feel good. Does the movie and its performers deserve an Oscar? Honestly? More than anything I think - who cares? In my opinion no, probably not. But - essentially who cares?

You will see the same people claim that these actors didn't deserve these Oscars while also claiming the Oscars are silly and pointless and people shouldn't watch them. Who cares.

Wow. Now I see that I don't understand philosophy at all 😄 But for me that movie was about lost opportunities. Every single one of us have them. And this movie just reminded me who would I be if certain thing happened in the past or maybe I would behave differently. And in the end it's all about accepting your reality you choose and move on.

>What if our brains can implicitly understand and mediate quantum states?

Sorry but this is sci-fi brain thinking. We understand the brain plenty well enough to answer this specific idea. The brain is a physical object, based in reality like every other object. We understand its molecular, cellular function very well. It is composed of particles like every other object, which have quantum superpositions like every other particle in the universe. The complex emergent behavior of the brain is difficult to understand, yes, but that is not a license to apply quantum physics concepts at macroscopic levels.

If you want to allow some spooky quantum navigation by a "soul" of some sort, we need to acknowledge that we are not talking about any physics or scientific knowledge.

Why not?

The philosophy I took away is “true, unconditional love heals all”