Re: Multiverse Morality

--- In [email protected], Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
>
> >On 9 August 2013 19:36, hibbsa wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >>In [email protected], Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@> wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> 
> >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.
> 
> If by wider philosophy means "MWI belief or philosophy", my main criticism within the context of this post would be that MWI leaves no room for real or genuine subjectivity. And this is very counter-intuitive as our entire existence as humans seems very subjective. The way we look as human, the way think, see, perceive the world. The existence of an unique and evolving inner/subjective world. Holistic qualities of human consciousness and perception and the way it is very tightly integrated to the inner/subjective world. And this is the "real" world we live in while everything else is "external" to us. To simply assume that all this is a big charade with no real subjectivity is not convincing to me.
> 
> From a more ontological PoV, I think stating that every possible universe according to an objective set of equations would exist is akin to thinking that "nothing exists or ever existed".
> 
> >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.
> I understand and really appreciate your effort. I admit that it is a courageous act.
> 
> Concerning MWI (or any other objectivist/mechanistic philosophy), I think subjectivity is the "elephant in the room". I choose not to fool myself by assuming that "Self" or "I" is a construct or is a structure or would emerge magically from objective computational/mechanistic processes. Firstly, we do not have any valid basis to claim so as we could not understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I" emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe genuine subjectivity would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is not genuine (they are not compatible).
> My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make diverge but make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does give the existence its identity, integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is quite possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above) that leads to the macroworld we live in.
> 
> >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.
> 
> As I have explained above, I do not believe that morality based on moral agent (aka subjectivity) would emerge from characteristics possible in an MWI only universe. For me, objective equations on which MWI is based are just constituents and could not explain the total package of existence.
> 
> Ismail Atalay
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Ismail - thanks for your thoughtful comments. In terms of any total package of existence, Deutsch seems pretty much on the record in the title of his most recent book :O)