全 2 件のコメント

[–]thedeliriousdonutkantian meme scholar [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

wat

wat

wat

w

"straining Haha, bu-urgh-but you see, it is fine that I am being shanked in prison by you all. For the qu-quantum mechanics has shown-urk"

This is such a great density of wrong and nonsense. Like I'm just sitting here mentally breaking this down so I can even begin to parse it on some level.


It's like when you're in those restaurants with two televisions playing and also music and it's a foreign-themed restaurant so they play both conventional American pop songs but also the pop music of their culture, so you're just trying to parse out the noise from four sources.

I don't understand why restaurants do that at all. Like that's not even a cultural thing, we universally can't parse multiple audio sources easily like that. Like can everyone but Americans just listen to 4 audiobooks at once or something? Are Americans auditorily stunted? Ha, that's why my music career didn't launch! It's not because I'm an untalented hack, it's because I'm American! I-it is!


1) Assuming Everett's interpretation is true. Like yo, I'm all in for deterministic interpretations but where's the love for Bohm, wtf. But furreal wtf is this "it is proven" bs; no, philosophy of physics isn't solved ffs.

2) This is a horrible interpretation of Everett, it doesn't even...each universe is not causally linked in a macro sense that we would understand like this. Like yes, the excitations in the field might deviate, but that doesn't automatically lead to an even number of universes in which one macro attribute exists (such as an animal dying) and an even number of universes where it doesn't.

It's not "Okay, by killing this animal, I create one universe where it dies and another where it lives." It's "Okay, by killing this universe, I am a part of a great number of systems in which something happens to this animal by my hand that can be interpreted as death. In other universes, completely different and unrelated things are happening, and there is no reason for me to expect that for each universe with me killing an animal, there is an equal number of universes where this is not the case."

3) The whole argument is inconsistent with:

Infinity minus one is still infinity, people.

Okay, so is the argument here a lack of significance? "One out of infinity is infinitely insignificant!" But the rest of the argument is a lack of net gain or loss due to a universe being created for the life of a being for each universe where that life is extinguished.

4) Consequentialism.

5) If it's 50/50, at the very least when it comes to macro life and death (because those are the quantum states that are apparently being equalized and balanced out for some reason I guess?), wouldn't we see a way larger standard deviation of life. Like physics aside, wouldn't we see a lot of people living ridiculously long.

I mean, if it's a coin flip for every segment of Planck's time, then maybe not, but then lives seem like they'd be ridiculously short, so I'm assuming every single thing that could kill you, from old age to cancer to someone trying to kill you, would have a 50% chance of killing you. One timeline of death and one timeline of life. Again, why is the macro state of life and death somehow being split evenly 50/50 from quantum events. I don't understand.

There's so many layers of wtf to this.

[–]thedeliriousdonutkantian meme scholar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Man it's maybe bad philosophy of mind, too.

Fuck.

This is just so bad. Most badphil is like one dude making one bad argument after another. This is just...it's all wrapped up in one. What the fuck.