Recent comments in /f/philosophy

ImOpAfLmao t1_jc7euoy wrote

Reply to comment by PussyStapler in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov

Firstly you're wrong when you comment that bijection implies ratio is 1:1. A quick example is the two sets A = {0, 1, 2, 3...} and B = {0, 2, 4, 6..}. These sets form a bijection (a -> 2a, and b -> (1/2)b). The ratio of #s in B less than x over #s in A less than x for some x is (ceiling(x/2) / x). And so lim x-> inf of (ceiling(x/2) / x) = 1/2. So bijections don't imply ratio is 1:1.

Secondly, you're wrong about their example not working out. The ratio in their example does not become 1:1, the limit tends to 0. Quick explanation, simpler ways exist, but just for illustration:

From the prime number theorem, we know lim x-> inf of (pi(x)/(x / (log x)) = 1, where pi(x) counts the number of primes below x.

In this case we want to figure out what limit of the ratio of primes is to non primes below x, or lim x->inf of (pi(x)/(x - pi(x)). Dividing both numerator and denominator by (x/(log(x)), we have lim x-> inf of pi(x)/(x/(log(x)) / ((x - pi(x))/ (x / log(x)).

Quotient limit rule, so the numerator limit is 1 by prime number theorem, so we have it equivalent to 1 / (lim x-> inf of ((x - pi(x)) / (x / log(x))). So if we show the denominator limit goes to infinity, the entire limit is 0.

Bottom limit simplifies to lim x-> inf of x*log(x)/x - log(x) * pi(x)/x, the latter term goes to 1 by the prime number theorem, and thus the entire denominator limit is just lim x-> inf of (log(x) - 1) which goes to infinity, thus entire limit goes to 0.

0

Seek_Equilibrium t1_jc7eikj wrote

Reply to comment by EmptyTotal in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov

The examples you give are interesting ways of recovering a natural ordering. It makes me wonder, in the case of spatiotemporally disconnected cosmological multiverses, if some kind of n-dimensional “similarity measure” could be used in principle, with our universe as the reference.

Of note, though, this…

> (Just like it is obvious that infinite coin flips should be time-ordered when referring to their “frequency”.)

… is problematic unless there is some actual infinite sequence of coin flips that we can refer to. Any hypothetical infinite sequence of coin flips could have any hypothetical time-ordering, so the original problem just rearises in the form of specifying the order of the flips in time.

0

HamiltonBrae t1_jc78t6u wrote

Reply to comment by zms11235 in No empirical experiment can prove or disprove the existence of free will without accounting for the inadvertent biases surrounding both the experiment and the concept of free will. by IAI_Admin

Not necessarily. Accuracy can just mean that the model you construct predicts data accurately... the data you see in the world is what the model tells you to expect. That doesn't necessarily mean the model is true. Nor does it necessarily mean there is a single true model that we can construct.

0

dolphin37 t1_jc6wtqo wrote

Reply to comment by Azmisov in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov

I think the confusion is that you referred to wave function collapse, which is essentially the scientific term for our singular universe being all there is after said collapse being triggered by measurement. In MWI the collapse doesn’t happen, so you’re not observing that, you’re observing one of the probabilities of the universal wave function. I think that’s really what you meant but the terms weren’t quite right.

I also am unsure with if the person who responded to you is right anyway. My understanding of MWI is not that all universes already exist. The process is literally called branching. To say that we’re branching on existing paths, to me, means that we would need to assume free will and entropy are not ‘real’, otherwise at a particular entropic point, some universes only exist mathematically, which is not the point of MWI. Would be interested in having that one explained.

1

dolphin37 t1_jc6pse4 wrote

Reply to comment by SlightlyBadderBunny in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov

Yeah haha must admit I’m struggling with the over analysis here. I guess people are just excited to talk about multiple universes or something, which is fair enough.

The story seems like quite a straight forward love vs expectation one. Be thankful for what you have, not what you could or should have.

The science works enough to facilitate the plot if you don’t poke it too hard and that’s all you can ask for. Beyond that it’s just an incredibly stylistic, heartfelt movie.

2

EmptyTotal t1_jc6kbrc wrote

Reply to comment by Seek_Equilibrium in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov

>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.

In the context of multiverses, there are natural ways of ordering them. In MWI for example, you could consider universes that first differ from ours by a more recent branching event to be "closer" than ones that branched further back. Then whatever density you want can be defined in the set of universes that diverged later than time t, as t is taken to zero.

Frequency in a multiverse shouldn't really be any less intuitive than a frequency measurement in our single universe. If space is infinite, then it also contains infinite planets. But it is still obvious that most of space is empty.

(Just like it is obvious that infinite coin flips should be time-ordered when referring to their "frequency".)

4