This is a topic I've been thinking about for a while: the notion that if we can identify beliefs that we ought to hold, we can utilize them in a knowledge-like matter even if they fall short of being knowledge themselves. Furthermore, if we can state with some degree of certainty that our beliefs are the ones that we ought to hold, whether or not they are knowledge is far less relevant.

This is also my first go at writing and sharing philosophy; I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

How does this help define the frequency of an element within the infinite set?

>Yeah I understand the above but my point was that I don’t think MWI posits that our universe is anything more than the wave function

Yes that's what I was referring to when I mentioned the universal wave function.

> The wave function is not a physical massive dimensional space, it’s just what the universe is.

Are you suggesting our universe isn't a massive dimensional space? That waves don't propagate and exist in a dimensional space?

>They aren’t existing or expanding in to something more than themselves

Exactly. At no point is anything new created the wave function simply changes.

>what happens to an electron made one minute from now?

What do you mean? If there are two outcomes for that electron then it will be created in two universes and both outcomes will happen.

> That means every possible event of decoherence has its own world that all start at t=0, when the universe was fully unentangled and entropy has yet to take effect. That doesn’t work if you remove entropy and making it work sounds like entropy is being proposed as emergent.

Yes, but when did I suggest removing entropy?

>I’m not quite getting what you’re saying the abstracted alternative is?

The actual model instead of imagining a branching tree of multiverses which is not what MWI is. These are identical universes that are entangled and decohere. I'm not sure where you got the idea entanglement contradicts what I said or implies the creation of new universes. When two particles become entangled they do it through interaction not creation of particles.

you understand oaf.

So you also don't know what a metaphor is

Reddit broke so I lost my whole post, will try to be shorter now and cover your second comment too.

Yeah I understand the above but my point was that I don’t think MWI posits that our universe is anything more than the wave function. The wave function is not a physical massive dimensional space, it’s just what the universe is. The wave function exists in hilbert space but that is just a mathematical abstraction not a physical space. The many worlds are the physical spaces. They aren’t existing or expanding in to something more than themselves

Regarding your electron, the issue I’m trying to get to is the superposition of a given electron or even all electrons or even all fields doesn’t describe every state of the environment at all points of entropy and with all interactions accounted for. If one electron exists now and all worlds exist for its superposition (you said this but branching is based off decoherence which is environmental entanglement not just superposition) what happens to an electron made one minute from now?

I’m not aware of MWI saying anything about time/entropy not being fundamental so this needs to be accounted for. For this to be accounted for in your scenario, the many worlds need to account for every current interaction and every past or future interaction at once. That means every possible event of decoherence has its own world that all start at t=0, when the universe was fully unentangled and entropy has yet to take effect. That doesn’t work if you remove entropy and making it work sounds like entropy is being proposed as emergent.

I can probably link to a dozen videos of theoretical physicists referring to branching and how often it happens. Sean Carroll has a common example he gives of how every radioactive decay in our body branches it, over time. I’m aware that sometimes these terms are used as human ways of understanding these concepts - but that is what we are and I’m not quite getting what you’re saying the abstracted alternative is?

Then what does "truth" even refer to in your worldview?

You're arguing that predictive modeling is the best/only real standard for truth. That's a truth claim. So did you come to this belief via predictive modeling? If not, it's an invalid claim on your own grounds.

Not a single thing in that comment “corrected” what I said previously. I made a point only about infinite sets without natural orderings. I didn’t even argue whether an ordering can be given for an infinite multiverse. I noted that their response is interesting and potentially valuable for providing such natural orderings on infinite multiverses.

The point I made stands: if we cant find natural orderings for infinite multiverses, then we can’t meaningfully talk about the frequencies or proportions of universes within the multiverse. Their comment is germane to the antecedent (“if we can’t”). If they’re right, then we can indeed find natural orderings for infinite multiverses, so the consequent doesn’t necessarily apply.

I'm not sure that defining a 'sequence' is as relevant here as one might think; while it's a strategy often used in proofs, I don't think that (in my layperson's understanding) this precludes there existing different 'orders' of 'infinity'

Sorry to reply twice but I didn't want to edit my other comment in case you missed it.

>as some kind of gigantic dimensional configuration space but as far as I'm aware that's not posited as a physical reality.

It is actually. There aren't really multiple universes strictly speaking. Instead there is a universal wave function that describes the entire multiverse created by decoherence in our universe. That universal wave function is our universe.

I specify our universe because there are other theoretically possible sources of multiverses like eternal inflation or extensions to the Penrose diagrams of black holes.

TL;DR "thank you for the correction" ;D

I hate all of it except the original reality of family and laundromat...guess I'm not into the multiverse concept...I do appreciate the amount of work that went into it.

When an electron is in a superposition of two states it's the sum of two states. When it collapses it collapses to a single state. What happens to the other state? Is it gone and we don't need to worry about it(Copenhagen). Do both states happen in their own universes(MWI)?

So it's not totally incorrect to say 1 becomes two .5s but where in that description is a new universe created? The two states always existed. It sounds like a split when you reduce it to .5+.5=1 but in the superposition both states exist so it's more like .5+.5=(.5+.5). 1 isn't being cleaved in half. It's decohering into it's two states.

Hate to break it to you pal, I neither use or am a part of the tiktok generation. But I get it, you are smarter than everyone and it is your unbearable burden to let everyone know just how smart you are. Classic tik-tok generation stuff.

(My understanding:) In MWI, the universe is the wave function and each branch dilutes the energy. So if you have 1x energy and the universe branches, each 'world' contains 0.5x energy. We don't notice the change in energy because our entire world has got proportionally skinnier. That happens as part of decoherence.

Is this maybe a confusion between terms or something? The wave function/universe is one thing, the many worlds of which are created 'in to'... that kind of implies there is a thing they are in though, which is not necessarily the case. We can describe it as some kind of gigantic dimensional configuration space but as far as I'm aware that's not posited as a physical reality.

I don't know what Hintikka said about this. However, note that Hintikka argues against intuitions as an alleged source of evidence, which is their primary use in contemporary philosophy. As far as I can see, axioms aren't considered evidence. They are postulated. I think physicists are more careful in this regard because they explicitly speak about postulates, not axioms.

My take is that most texts in which intuitions are applied as a source of evidence (as opposed to an indicator for further inquiry) can safely remove any talk about intuitions and nothing of value and philosophical insight is lost.

Such a fresh topic in this day and age, am I right or what?! Individualism, create your own unique identity and meaning. True post-modern western values right in your face, not blatantly explicit at all. So fresh!

I am sorry but there is nothing new this movie brings to the table other than an over-stylized chaotic spectacle to overload your senses into thinking you've seen something amazing. Classic tik-tok generation stuff.

>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.

They "branch" because they were coherent and identical before that.

The alternative is to suggest every time a measurement occurs an entirely new universe is created. Where do you imagine the energy required to create an entire universe comes from?

But she wasn't.

I read this New Yorker article today detailing an unconventional familial arrangement, one shared by a professor in philosophy with her graduate student-turned-husband and her ex-husband. I am in awe with how individuals choose to enter a wide range of possibilities for their relationships that aren't the usual straight, monogamous, typical varieties.

More radical, is my recent discovery of the swinging lifestyle, in which couples swap their partners sexually for a night. That discovery shocked me.

My questions:

• To what extent can we normatively evaluate alternate kinds of relationships? Polygamy on the whole is perceived as divergent but not radically abnormal. But this valuation would not extend to incestual love, or pedophilia love. Are there limits to who we have sex with and love? What are the criteria in deciding them?
• What does our surprise, awe, disgust, in reaction to these alternate arrangements tell us about ourselves? Does sexual prudishness indicate a lack of education? Or fear of progression? Or to maintain a stable paradigm in the way we see the world?

Suggestions of further readings (philosophical/fiction) into alternate sexual and family arrangements would be very much appreciated.

Both 1 and 2 are correct. Nothing means anything, so anything can mean everything. All meaning is derived of context, all context is artificially derived. Sooo??? While your points make sense, and I tend to agree with you, i really just want you to suck on my hotdog fingers.

>That’s a truth claim.

 

Yes, but if you're an anti-realist about truth then I don't think it really matters. I use words like true or false all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean I am using them to mean something in the sense of truth/justification realism.

 

>So what model did you use to construct it?

 

what are you talking about exactly?

I wonder why. Maybe because it won a bunch of awards?

I watched it a year ago and loved it. It had quite a bit of buzz which was pretty positive overall, but I agree that as of late people seem to be overthinking reasons on why they think it’s like ultra pretentious or something.

Forget the careful dissections of the meanings of truth, logic, axiom and foundation.

The reality is that truth is contingent and is a construct that we impose on reality that is "yet-to-be-known" and may be unknowable.

Certainly axioms and logic lead us to constructs that are useful and accurate descriptions of reality, but there is plenty of room for disagreement on even those constructs, never mind how what we "know" may change in the future.

On this PI day (3-14) I am contemplating how "pi" may be our closest daily interaction with the
infinite. The idea that "pi" has been calculated to over a trillion
digits and that there are a trillion more out there, existing but
unknown, challenges our very idea of the meaning of existence and truth.

The "yet-to-be-known" -- whether digits of pi or the next elementary
particle or the communications systems between trees or the true nature
of the multiverse -- clearly exists "out there" waiting to be
comprehended by human conceptual consciousness.

Yet "pi" reminds us that however detailed and accurate our view, there is always more to
discover. Human concepts are a construct that we impose on an
underlying reality that may not be fully reducible to definitions and
measurements -- an analog reality rendered by digital tools. Like a
digital picture, no matter how fine grained the pixels, there's still
those damned spaces.

Even though she was living in the worst possible timeline.