Re: Macroscopic Emergence in MWI worlds

--- In [email protected], Gary Oberbrunner <garyo@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:56 AM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
> 
> > > The issue arises when you converge, on the one hand, the
> > requirements our own macroscopic world need to meet in order to be
> > consistent, reliable, repeating and ultimately deterministic. With, on the
> > other hand, the supposition all or most instances of quantum behaviour
> > involves or is associated with some emergence.
> 
> 
> If this is the issue, I'm not sure what the issue is.  Emergence generally
> (not always, but mostly) smooths out low-level randomness or lumpiness into
> consistent, reliable, deterministic macroscopic behavior, which is what
> you're hoping for.  Low-level quantum phenomena have lots of randomness;
> averaging over lots of those universes (or lots of instances in one
> universe) gives nicely predictable emergent properties like temperature,
> energy and entropy, or in another domain, predictable, stable giant ant
> hills from fairly random individual ant behaviors.
> 
> ps: if you see this, it means I can post to FoR again.
> 
> -- 
> Gary
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Gary, I think it's probably more reasonable to assume a lot more emergence, in a lot more ways, than what might readily come to mind. 

What is the problem. Well look, emergence is definitively independent of the how the underlying quantum effects pan out. Which is the same as saying, it's independent of the sort of variation produced by divergence. 

So the problem is, MWI has basically has no macroscopic influence. 

I keep hearing about the bizarre vanishingly improbable outcomes, but despite that saying nothing not already covered in probability/statistics, it looks to me like mwi only works conceptually when applied to humans and daft outliers. 

Or please explain why I'm wrong. But please if you do, first say a few words confirming what you think I think, otherwise I won't know if what you are saying helps me :o) 

p.s. there are other categories of major problem. What about the fact MWI is created by integrating QM with a load of assumptions....that never get any kind of treatment or analysis. Lots of implicit assumptions in there too.

I think you, Deutsch, basically all of you, are seriously mixed up about what you can and cannot do with unexamined assumptions in vague form effectively treated as constants. 

What you can do is use them as intuitive guides...a way to help find an insight direction. 

But what you cannot ever do, is actually use them in the actual calculation. You can't make them into major influences. You can't do that, because science tells us the nature of reality as output, we don't tell it