Re: Multiverse Morality

--- In [email protected], Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>On 8 August 2013 14:04, Nick Belane wrote:
> >>>On 7 August 2013 16:50, Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
> 
> >>>The whole premise of morality (at least in the classical sense) is based
> >>> on moral agents making choices in the way they act (out of multiple
> >>> options) and their choices making a meaningful existential and
> >>> circumstantial difference in themselves and in the world they live. In MWI
> >>> world, the moral agent's choice looses its significance. Actually the moral
> >>> agent him/herself looses its significance and meaning.
> >>> In MWI, there are infinite number of moral agents and they do choose every
> >>> possible option anyway in infinite number of universes. Why would the
> >>> choice of one particular self in one of the infinite number of universes
> >>> make a meaningful difference from the perspective of multiverse existence?
> 
> 
> >>I would say that it makes an infinitesimal difference.
> Actually I respectfully disagree. The multiverse would remain the same because all possible universes do exist irrespective of whatever you choose.
> 
> 
> >>> And they do not have any superiority or uniqueness with respect to others
> >>> according to MWI. There is nothing special in any of the universes. We can
> >>> not say one universe would be "better" than the other.
> >>> Or should we say it? There would be universes which are "better" than
> >>> others from consistency, purposefulness and correctness perspective.  Shall
> >>> we try to be in the best possible universe? Why I would have such
> >>> motivation if I already know that all other lower morality universes would
> >>> exist in parallel whatever I choose and in the end I am not making any
> >>> difference from the overall existential perspective?
> 
> 
> >>What you could do is to try to maximise the measure of "good" universes
> >>whith respect to "bad" ones in the whole of the multiverse.
> >>That's definitely something meaningful you can do!
> 
> >>I hope I have understood your points,
> >>Piernicola
> 
> I do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is no room for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI. AFAIC, according to MWI, we humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if we have a real influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting according to objective equations during these processes  and thus we do not make any real choice.
> Ismail Atalay
>  
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be criticizing given what  you are saying. 

The philosophy is like an integrated piece of circuitry. C&R --> knowledge creation : but eventually C&R has to discover good philosophy, rationality, memetics, rational-morality, and a rich fabric of associated traits.....or C&R discovers something else which naturally refutes those features...or C&R breaks down. 

These are the traits of universal knowledge creators. Universes that contain such beings, and see Englightenment-like events, progressively come to be defined by the presence of these beings, whom literally become forces of nature. 

Universes that exhibit these traits in the multiverse, break out at dimensionality not seen in the other universes, which exhibit characteristics that progressively define the multiverse itself, in terms of meaning, morality, philosophy, point-of. 

That's the package. You can't just say you don't think it would happen. Or not usefully. Not in a list that exists to discuss and critique the wider philosophy that implies that it will.