Re: Multiverse Morality

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:39 PM, situagent <dsallach-/[email protected]> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- 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
> >
>
> Ismail,
>
> Perhaps you are assuming too much, or making the wrong assumptions, Just
> because MWI can be described with equations, doesn't mean that choices
> wouldn't be subjectivly experienced as well. The very fact that we
> experience moral choices subjectively is evidence that subjctivity is
> present in the multiverse.
>
> Also, MWI doesn't necessarily branch in a temporal order. All possible
> paths exist simultaneously. We and our counterparts move through them in
> different possible sequences. As Don McLean writes:
>
> So there's no need in turning back
> For all roads lead to where we stand
> And I believe we'll walk them all
> No matter what we may have planned.
>
> Over "time", the more moral the path, the denser the node, and the richer
> and more stable the experience. Like an amusement park, we can go where we
> want but, the more knowledge we acquire, the more we will construct
> rewarding and fulfilling experiences.
>
> Or so it seems to me.

The whole discussion up to this point has not considered top-down causation,
which makes conscious choice possible without multiverse divergence imo.
yanniru


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]