If the map is not the territory how is it that the maths and logic can assign some worlds, or infinite many, but not others with the attribute of being real and instantiated beyond the model?
Can selections for “realness” be justified or explained logically, is it a matter of deduction?
Say, what makes something a real thing versus an abstract matter. When does the map become the territory?
As far as I know the uniformity or different states of the universe are not claimed to be factual beyond the observable because we can deduce that it is logical to think one way or the other?
You say that once I read the relevant sequence I will understand. That might be so, as acknowledged in my post. But given my partial knowledge I’m skeptic that it is sound enough to allow for ideas to be taken serious enough such as that you can influence causally disconnected parts of the multiverse. That it would be a good idea tossing a quantum coin to make key decisions and so on.
It was however just one example to illustrate some further speculations that are based on the interpretation of a incomplete view of the world.
I think the idea of a Mathematical Universe is very appealing. Yet I’m not going to base decisions on this idea, not given the current state of knowledge.
If you claim that sufficient logical consistency can be used as a fundament for further argumentation about the real world, I’ll take note. I have to think about it. People say, “no conclusions can be drawn if you fail to build a contradiction”. They also say you have to make strong, falsifiable predictions. Further, people say that picking a given interpretation of the world has to have practical value to be capable of being differentiated from that which isn’t useful.
It seems that you mainly study and observe nature with emphasis on an exclusively abstract approach rather than the empirical. As I said, I do not claim there’s anything wrong with it. But so far I have my doubts.
MWI may be a logical correct and reasonable deduction. But does it provide guidance or increase confidence? Is it justified to be taken for granted, to be perceived as part of the territory simply because it makes sense? It is not a necessity.
Your skepticism is aimed in the wrong direction and MWI does not say what you think it does. Read the sequence. When you’re done you’ll have a much better gut sense of the gap between SIAI and Charles Stross.
If the map is not the territory how is it that the maths and logic can assign some worlds, or infinite many, but not others with the attribute of being real and instantiated beyond the model?
Can selections for “realness” be justified or explained logically, is it a matter of deduction?
Say, what makes something a real thing versus an abstract matter. When does the map become the territory?
As far as I know the uniformity or different states of the universe are not claimed to be factual beyond the observable because we can deduce that it is logical to think one way or the other?
You say that once I read the relevant sequence I will understand. That might be so, as acknowledged in my post. But given my partial knowledge I’m skeptic that it is sound enough to allow for ideas to be taken serious enough such as that you can influence causally disconnected parts of the multiverse. That it would be a good idea tossing a quantum coin to make key decisions and so on.
It was however just one example to illustrate some further speculations that are based on the interpretation of a incomplete view of the world.
I think the idea of a Mathematical Universe is very appealing. Yet I’m not going to base decisions on this idea, not given the current state of knowledge.
If you claim that sufficient logical consistency can be used as a fundament for further argumentation about the real world, I’ll take note. I have to think about it. People say, “no conclusions can be drawn if you fail to build a contradiction”. They also say you have to make strong, falsifiable predictions. Further, people say that picking a given interpretation of the world has to have practical value to be capable of being differentiated from that which isn’t useful.
It seems that you mainly study and observe nature with emphasis on an exclusively abstract approach rather than the empirical. As I said, I do not claim there’s anything wrong with it. But so far I have my doubts.
MWI may be a logical correct and reasonable deduction. But does it provide guidance or increase confidence? Is it justified to be taken for granted, to be perceived as part of the territory simply because it makes sense? It is not a necessity.
Your skepticism is aimed in the wrong direction and MWI does not say what you think it does. Read the sequence. When you’re done you’ll have a much better gut sense of the gap between SIAI and Charles Stross.