I agree that this depends on people caring about goods in different universes. I care a bunch about goods in different universes and I expect many others will too.
(Actually there might be galaxy-brained decision-theoretic arguments nevertheless, including based on the prospect that we’re in a simulation, but the basic case depends on caring about different universes.)
How do you know they exist, when all you have to go on is armchair speculation? I would take little satisfaction in contemplating towers of reason about things I can never come in contact with. Does the MWI play an essential load-bearing role for this?
Sorry, I’m busy plus I don’t have amazing things to say here. You could ask a chatbot about the space of possible universes and whether other universes are real.
You don’t have to be amazing, just give your reader some guidance. Beliefs about the multiverse are like beliefs about God, it’s not self-evident what any given advocate believes, and they are not easily testable; and it is reasonable for a reader to ask for clarification.
In the case of the multiverse, one may ask (1) what are these other universes like (2) why do you believe in them. Like Richard, I thought your main argument would depend on the many worlds interpretation. The other common argument (I think this is Tegmark’s original rationale, and it’s one I came up with on my own as well) is that it’s simpler to believe that all possible worlds exist, rather than just one of them or some of them. Would that argument from simplicity, be your main argument for a multiverse?
I agree that this depends on people caring about goods in different universes. I care a bunch about goods in different universes and I expect many others will too.
(Actually there might be galaxy-brained decision-theoretic arguments nevertheless, including based on the prospect that we’re in a simulation, but the basic case depends on caring about different universes.)
How do you know they exist, when all you have to go on is armchair speculation? I would take little satisfaction in contemplating towers of reason about things I can never come in contact with. Does the MWI play an essential load-bearing role for this?
I see from your disagree vote that my guess about the MWI was wrong. What is the status of these multiple universes?
Sorry, I’m busy plus I don’t have amazing things to say here. You could ask a chatbot about the space of possible universes and whether other universes are real.
You don’t have to be amazing, just give your reader some guidance. Beliefs about the multiverse are like beliefs about God, it’s not self-evident what any given advocate believes, and they are not easily testable; and it is reasonable for a reader to ask for clarification.
In the case of the multiverse, one may ask (1) what are these other universes like (2) why do you believe in them. Like Richard, I thought your main argument would depend on the many worlds interpretation. The other common argument (I think this is Tegmark’s original rationale, and it’s one I came up with on my own as well) is that it’s simpler to believe that all possible worlds exist, rather than just one of them or some of them. Would that argument from simplicity, be your main argument for a multiverse?
edit: This comment, from elsewhere on this page, is helpful in suggesting some community figures (@paulfchristiano, @ryan_greenblatt, @Joe Carlsmith, @Daniel Kokotajlo) whose informed opinion apparently favors the viability of acausal cooperation.
Asking chatbots for answers rots the soul.