Re: Multiverse Morality

  
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 22:42 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

>On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay-/[email protected]>wrote:

> >On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 0:44 PM, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
>
>>>>On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay-/[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>> do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is noroom
>>>> 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


>>>Just to be clear, this point of view above is not specific to the MWI. It
>>>applies to any deterministic non-dualistic physics, such as a Newtonian
>> >block universe (no splitting, but no "real choice" either), or the
>>>Copenhagen interpretation of QM. You would need some kind of non-physical
>>>mind or soul in order to have it not be according to objective equations.
>>>Which of course raises all the standard mind/body dualism questions, which
>>> I won't repeat here.

>>There could be subjectivity without dualistic physics. Personally I think
>> dualistic physics or any conception of non-physical existence does not make
>> sense and is not supported by (actually goes against) modern scientific
>>evidence.
>>Having said  that how could we be sure that the whole physics is solely
>> explained and governed by deterministic and objective equations? Maybe
>>there is a subjective aspect of monistic physical reality that eludes us
>> because we can not access to it or our current scientific knowledge is not
>> enough for any access to thus aspect. Maybe this is the reason why we are
>>in great trouble in understanding, analyzing or modeling the subjective
>> nature of consciousness or the qualia phenomenon.
>>By subjective aspect of physical reality, I am referring to some concept
>> along the lines of panpsychism.
>> Ismail Atalay

>Top-down causation might provide a basis for free choice within a single
>world.
>http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.2275
>Richard

Richard,
Thank you very much for sending this link. I happen to be an electronic/computer engineer specialized on artificial intelligence, algorithms, electronic implementation etc. Actively/professionally working on almost every aspect of digital systems over the course of the last 21 years. I have also close interest to philosophy of science and to philosphy of mind since my childhood.
I would like mention that top-down causation explained in this article could in no way be the basis for free choice.
In the end of the day, any digital computer is a physical machine with predefined&predesigned flexibilities that allows changes in the way it operates through instructions called "software". There is nothing non-physical or not relying heavily on physical in a digital computer. Things seems more abstract and less tangible in upper layers but these are only representations of underlying complexity of the lower layers. Upper layers (above physical) do not have an ontological existence.

Top-down causation is a common phenomenon in every machine. One of the top reasons we are using electronics is that it is making the top-down causation more manageable and flexible. Digital electronic systems are purely based on mechanistic, deterministic causation and this works in both ways (bottom-up or up-to-bottom) because they are designed to work that way. Actually the system designers would be very careful so that these two causality arrows in different directions do not clash or do not interfere in an uncontrolled or non-managed way.
You could say that in biological systems maybe there is no such isolation and two causality chains are allowed to clash and to interfere each other in the ways we do not know yet. Would it make a difference? I do not think so. Such system would be more random and less predictable but this is not our aim. It would be always possible to introduce or to integrate randomness and unpredictability to digital electronic systems we design but this does mean that they are making free choices.

In my opinion, free choice would require truly subjective (first person "I") perspective and existential awareness that brings the potential to break all causality chains internal or external to the entity who is performing it.
Ismail Atalay




 

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