Re: Closer To Truth interview

--- In [email protected], David Deutsch <david.deutsch@...> wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2013, at 20:49, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me you need conscious decisions for multiverse histories to see 
> 
> Does that mean "you need conscious decisions for multiverse histories to be conscious of..." 
> 
> If so, then yes: consciousness can't exist at all in the absence of consciousness.
> 
> > macroscopic divergence of a significant kind. 
> 
> 
> What does 'seeing macroscopic divergence' mean? Presumably it doesn't mean 'being conscious of more than one universe'. Perhaps it means the existence of apparent randomness affecting macroscopic observables. But you don't need consciousness for that. All you need is amplification, which happens all the time and doesn't need any specially designed equipment.
> > 
> > Which sort of puts MWI in the dock for one of the problems it claims to solve: putting conscious observers at the heart of things.
> 
> It sort of puts MWI in the dock for *your* having put conscious observers at the heart of things, contrary to the predictions of quantum theory. Those are that multiple, approximately decoherent histories are a generic phenomenon in the multiverse.
> 
> -- David Deutsch
>

DD...I'm finding it hard to understand what you are saying in terms of what I am saying. 

I think it would help (me) if you answered my first question. Which I'll restate here, a bit clearer hopefully. 

Let's say 10^23 instances of approximately the same mole existed in this universe. I know you'd need more, but let's say each of the 10^23 multiverse histories was represented by each of those moles in this universe. 

What extent would all 10^23 (or however many) moles react to exhibit  the same emergent properties? 

Or said differently, however many instances necessary to represent every multiverse history, of a litre H20 would boil at the same temperature?