Re: Multiverse Morality

--- In [email protected], Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:
>
> >On 23 August 2013 05:39, situagent wrote:
> 
> >> In [email protected], Ismail
> Atalay <i_c_atalay@> wrote:
> >>>On 9 August 2013 19:36, hibbsa wrote:
> >>>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.
> >
> >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.
> 
> The experience (moral, mental etc) might be subjective in MWI (at least it would appear to be subjective to the entity who experiences it). But this is a false subjectivity that could be totally deconstructed or reconstructed by objective equations and processes. There can not be genuine subjectivity relying on the ontological mercy of objective equations/processes.
> 
> Also your statement "The very fact that we experience moral choices subjectively is evidence that subjectivity is present in the multiverse" tells us that you make an assumption first "there is multiverse MWI style". Then obviously we are existing in this MWI multiverse following from this statement. Then "We are experiencing moral choices subjectively" which is a fact. However it is obvious to me that all this could not be the evidence that "subjectivity exist in MWI" with the non-proven assumption of ""there is multiverse MWI style" in the first place.
> 
> >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.
> 
> I can understand that. Thank you for the clarification. This is
> exactly the point that troubles me for any morality theory "all possible
> paths exist simultaneously"
> 
> 
> >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.
> 
> I agree with your implicit definition of more morality leading to more richness and stability in human experience. Actually this is more or less how I would define morality.
> 
> However in this type of MWI morality, there is no truly subjective and unique choice. My choice or your choice becomes irrelevant. For example who are "we" when you say "we can go where we want". In MWI only existential package, there are infinite versions of "me" who are doing the whole range of moral actions from the nastiest and most cruel (unimaginable cruelty) to the most peaceful and loving. And I do not choose actually, these are just microscopic divergences in my brain cell chemistry leading to different/parallel moral "choices" in parallel universes.

There seem to be interesting issues of emergence implicit in this issue.  If we were talking about dinosaurs or crocodiles, the issue of morality would not arise.  Did morality considerations coevolve with human awareness, knowledge, etc.?  If so, are the moral standards that apply proportional to the amount of knowledge that we have acquired?  

Do we have a moral obligation not to be ignorant?  If wisdom is not acquired in a simgle lifetime, some paths may be more productive, and some counterparts may surge ahead of others, perhaps via epigenetic inheritance, at least in particular areas.
> 
> Why would I feel any moral responsibility (right here, right know) if I know that whatever I choose, all possible choices and their full implications (from the most nasty/cruel to most benign) will occur anyway?

Perhaps there are implicit costs that <you> are insufficiently aware of?  (Lack of knowledge again.)
> 
> Sorry but I could not understand a morality concept without a feeling of moral responsibility, without a genuinely subjective choice and without making a real difference in the way the world exists.

I have quite a bit of sympathy for your position but, nonetheless, it seems tpretty close to trying to make morality true by definition.  I haven't particularly noticed this to be the case in the world I live it.