InPitzotl

There's a problem with your phrasing. "Schrodinger's cat" isn't an interpretation of QM; it's a thought experiment in it. What you're comparing is som...

I think that gets outside of MWI proper and into philosophy of identity. Personally, I think personal identity constructed anyway. Let's say S1 is Sch...

The MWI is just an interpretation. It embraces quantum realism, giving up classical realism. It hasn't been demonstrated true. All I'm arguing is that...

So you're not against MWI, but QM? No, it's in the wavefunction. When Schrodinger models the state of the box, he would model a superposition between ...

I think this is misguided. The MWI doesn't add any assumptions; in fact, its appeal is that it takes assumptions away. The apparent premise here is th...

I just had to pause with this one. Okay, if you don't click on the video, maybe I'll quote you some relevant snippets. Bartricks, you're biased. You'v...

Sorry it took so long to reply; I had to go on the internet and hurriedly look this up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc You seem to be a b...

Sure. Add a premise near the claim you want to make and presume it. But that exercise is pointless unless you're rationalizing. The point of induction...

Again, you're just nay-saying. The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where a person's meta-cognitive awareness of an area is low, and as a res...

I don't need you to think for me. Let me answer since you're avoiding it. Those two allegedly are the same argument because you've done a substitution...

Why are these the same argument?

No, it's not stupid. Yes, it doesn't follow. I see a body. Blood everywhere. There's a bloody knife next to the body. There's a bloody banana next to ...

So educate me. Tell me how it works with the body, next to the bloody knife and the bloody banana. ETA: Are the knife-murder weapon and banana-murder ...

1. "The knife is the murder weapon" becomes "the banana is the murder weapon" by variable substitution. 2. "The knife is the murder weapon" is a viabl...

It's not the same argument. Again, you're just nay-saying. You're phrasing this in terms of deduction; but we're applying evidence and induction. Vari...

I don't buy that the argument is stupid. You're just nay-saying it. Let's look at why it's allegedly stupid: Well, it doesn't follow. But that doesn't...

Well I read this: But "material" has to mean something, and it has to mean something sensible, else all statements you make about what is and what isn...

Well it's consistent with this: ...but I think my problem here goes a bit deeper. You're entirely correct... not having an explanation for how the imm...

Sure, but we're facing a claim that the mind is immaterial. And we know of multiple kinds of interactions between the physical and the mind... it's no...

What's confused about it? I somehow decide to raise my arm, then I act of my volition to raise it. Then, the arm moves. The arm is definitely material...

Stop the presses. Back up. We have three kinds of objects that have been described: abstract objects material objects immaterial objects Per the above...

Can you imagine an abstract Game of Life, as in Conway's Game of Life? I think we have different conceptions of abstract objects then. Can you name an...

I have no idea what you mean by object then. An olive has effects.

You could call it a system if you like, but I wouldn't call it one. The kernel is an abstraction; it's kind of an abstract object. In principle people...

Argument 1: 1. It is self-evident to our reason that it makes no sense to wonder what colour, smell, texture or taste, or sound the Linux kernel has. ...

Arguments 1, 2, 3, and 9 can equally apply to the Linux kernel. (JIC you're having a problem with argument 2: It is self-evident to our reason that it...

Your reckoning is wrong. Our disagreement should be about personal identity, not what the definition of a person is. This is the point of contention: ...

I disagree. John defines water as a substance composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Julius defines water as the fundamental element that...

This statement confuses me. I'm thinking at time T=1, there is A1. Then there's a copying process, and by time T=2, there is A2 and B2. "Up to the poi...

I disagree. Clearly and specifically, the degree to which those bodies are identical is a red herring. Each body has a distinct point of view; one can...

Silence does not achieve the same thing (even in an online one-on-one conversation).

But nothing is shown wrong by your question. Per the principle they are both "you". But being separate beings, they are different from each other. The...

Actually, no, it's not obvious. Why is it obvious to you? But being made up of molecules does not entail being a particular set of molecules. A river ...

Actually, it seems you're having problems with the word "acceleration". If an object at rest remains at rest, it is ipso facto not accelerating. Likew...

I think we're talking about different things then. Or not. In your reporting of these experiments, people are confabulating. It's completely untrue th...

I think you have the wrong video... I've played through this and there didn't seem to be any references to such experiments in them. But the conflict ...

Well for starters I would like to point out that: ...these two things seem to conflict.

...and what is that problem? ...and how are you fixing that? And why should we trust a guy whining about lack of reality when it's the same guy who cl...

Nothing more need be said. But it will be said anyway. Incidentally, GR and SR use dimensional representations of space. This includes with GR the use...

Sure. Let's backtrack. Call this statement A. I find this statement acceptable. In fact, a person isn't comprised of the same molecules over time; the...

That's not obvious to me.

MWI doesn't posit that everything you can think of happens. You need to show there actually is a part of the universal wave function with unicorns on ...

Sure, one of those worlds may contain a unicorn, but it would have to be shown that it does to meaningfully discuss it; same with the flying. As for t...

Yes, Oliver5, it is a false equivalence. Invisible (<- assumed property) flying (<- assumed property) unicorn (<- assumed beast). Schrodinger's Equati...

No, it's accuracy. What you're doing is spinning. The key question here isn't whether we should assume multiple worlds; it's whether we should assume ...

That's incorrect; MWI doesn't assume the existence of an infinity of worlds. Refer to Everett's seminal work "The Theory of the Universal Wave Functio...

The concept of "predetermined" is a bit broken. On a deterministic pool table, a cue ball hits a 6 ball, that veers off and hits the 8 ball, and that ...

...that's too hyperbolic to be true. The development of the sciences suggest that the universe follows a set of natural laws. That suggests determinis...

Sure. But you're a person, right? It's kind of like you're trying to tell people to believe you because, well, those other people, they're just being ...

It seems very important to you to make sure people realize that everything here is just a story.