If there is a Parallel Reality where you made a different choice, then what happens to free-will?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
If there is a Parallel Reality where you made a different choice, then what happens to free-will?

The parallel worlds hypothesis is an idea i feel compelled to reject, because if your choice is just the difference between a potentially infinite number of other choices that have actually happened, then no choice is actually free. In other-words there is a materialistic assumption underlying the hypothesis itself; the idea that our choices are just one of many physical outcomes determined by blind processes that are not making choices at all. So i wonder if this is a valid scientific hypothesis.

I wonder if it is, because if it happens to be true, then we cannot freely reason to it’s discovery. That is to say we cannot choose to find out if it is true (because there is no such thing as choice in this case), and the blind processes in our brain do not seek truth, thus whatever we think we cannot freely determine whether or not it is true because thoughts are just the outcome of blind natural processes; not reason.

This alone makes me think it is unreasonable to consider materialism as a starting point for science or any rational enquiry.

Tell me what you think.

Here is the video that got me thinking about this subject.

 
Last edited:
Have you looked at the work being done with Atoms in Physics? It is observed that Atoms have to be observed or they will react in a different way, meaning there are options for the Atoms but only by being observed will they stick to the plan and remain constant. Also an Atom can not move from A to B with out both A and B existing first meaning before an Atom was created another one had to be created at the same time and we know there are trillions and trillions and what ever number you want to come up with will still fall short, so all these Atoms had to exist at the same time and had to be observed for order to form. sounds familiar doesn’t it…In the beginning God create all things visible and invisible.
 
sevenswords said:
Have you looked at the work being done with Atoms in Physics? It is observed that Atoms have to be observed or they will react in a different way, meaning there are options for the Atoms but only by being observed will they stick to the plan and remain constant. Also an Atom can not move from A to B with out both A and B existing first meaning before an Atom was created another one had to be created at the same time and we know there are trillions and trillions and what ever number you want to come up with will still fall short, so all these Atoms had to exist at the same time and had to be observed for order to form. sounds familiar doesn’t it…In the beginning God create all things visible and invisible.
Click to expand...
Well God had to have collapsed the first wave function, otherwise where did the history of the universe come from before we existed?
 
Last edited:
God created all things from nothing, just as science claims has had to have happened. Unless you look at a new creation like the Evidence on the shroud where Atoms have never behaved like that before and we see a new creation instantly come into being.
 
If there are an infinite number of universes and you make a decision in each, then why could it not be classed as a free decision in each? Deciding to have chocolate in one universe as a free will decision does not mean that deciding to have vanilla in another means that either one was not made with free will.

This appears to be a question set up with a view to deny materialism.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
If there are an infinite number of universes and you make a decision in each, then why could it not be classed as a free decision in each? Deciding to have chocolate in one universe as a free will decision does not mean that deciding to have vanilla in another means that either one was not made with free will.

This appears to be a question set up with a view to deny materialism.
Click to expand...
However, if another parallel universe where you chose vanilla only exists because
there is a universe where you chose chocolate, then clearly the very concept of choice becomes meaningless because the existence of those differences are determined by the very fact that something else happened, and not by choice. If an atom exists and behaves differently only because an identical atom exists and did otherwise, then there is a kind of inescapable determinism involved there.

I am not setting up a conclusion, the conclusion follows necessarily and has serious implications for materialism as a worldview, in fact a materialistic assumption underlies the hypothesis, for the simple fact that it assumes that everything we think and do is the sum total of blind atomic processes and the end result is that any difference in your thinking and behaviour is due to blind atomic processes alone and not free-will.

I reject the hypothesis insofar as it includes the activity and intentionality of our intellects because we would not be rationally free to discover it’s truth; which makes it an invalid hypothesis in the respect that it’s implications applies to us as a potential discoverer. Clearly Materialism is an unreasonable worldview because it is not a rational basis to proceed with any kind of rational enquiry.

However if we are just talking about superficial differences where somebody who looks identical to you, but isn’t you, just so happens to choose chocolate, then we are not talking about the first kind of parallel universe explained in the video. We are talking about the second kind where the same physical patterns keep repeating themselves because the physical universe is potentially infinite, which i think is more consistent with freewill since that needn’t deterministically include our distinct intellects and choices accept in a very superficial way.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Clearly Materialism is an unreasonable worldview because it is not a rational basis to proceed with any kind of rational enquiry.
Click to expand...
If you think that quantum processes at the moment of the Big Bang are a direct predicator of specific macro events such as you deciding at 4:00 o’clock on a specific date billions of years later on vanilla rather than chocolate icecream, then you’d be right.

Remember the nail and the kingdom?
 
Bradskii said:
If you think that quantum processes at the moment of the Big Bang are a direct predicator of specific macro events such as you deciding at 4:00 o’clock on a specific date billions of years later on vanilla rather than chocolate ice cream, then you’d be right.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking specifically about parallel universes.

But lets take a look at what you have written…

It seems that what you wish to say has nothing to do with the subject except indirectly, since we are dealing with subatomic events either way.

If you watch the first video they give the reason why they think the first example of a parallel world is correct. And i am arguing that as a hypothesis it leads to inescapable consequences which, if true, means the hypothesis is invalid as a discoverable truth.

But dealing with your argument separately, the random behaviour of quantum events only allows for the possibility of a free agent in a very indirect fashion. This is to say that because of quantum physics there is nothing to stop a self-determining agent making a choice if such a thing existed. However, a self-determining agent is not the same thing as a random outcome following a blind natural process where there is no self-determining factor at all. An inescapable problem still remains for materialism regardless of quantum physics because a choice, as an effect, would still be the result of blind physical processes regardless of whether it happened randomly or deterministically. If what you do, think, and say, is only the outcome of blind natural processes dating back to the big-bang, then it isn’t a choice at all.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the question is what makes you, you.

For instance, if Parallel Universe You is enjoying that chocolate ice cream while This Universe You is having vanilla, who made the choice?
Maybe both choices were free will choices.
Maybe both Yous like both flavors.
 
Do I (Wesrock A) and my counterpart Wesrock B have different predispositions or wants? Is our knowledge different? If we’re absolutely identical as we make the choice, but reach different outcomes, it would seem to suggest a materialist view in which there’s no free will. Or to put it another way, if the outcome of my choices isn’t determined by my knowledge and my appetites, then it doesn’t seem like my choices are the result of a will at all. If Wesrock A and Wesrock B have the same knowledge and the same appetites but we see different outcomes, then it seems like there is some factor external to both Wesrocks determining the outcomes.

I’m not claiming this as an absolute, but that would trouble me.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
However, if another parallel universe where you chose vanilla only exists because
there is a universe where you chose chocolate, then clearly the very concept of choice becomes meaningless because the existence of those differences are determined by the very fact that something else happened and not by choice.
Click to expand...
If you exist in only one of these, though, then you actually have made a choice. (It’s all those not-you’s who have made other choices…)
 
Gorgias said:
If you exist in only one of these, though, then you actually have made a choice. (It’s all those not-you’s who have made other choices…)
Click to expand...
Well, if parallel worlds are just places and people that only look the same superficially speaking and are not essentially identical, then free-will is safe, since in that case you are not choosing A because i chose B.

But the physical facts that the hypothesis is based on has far reaching implications, because what we have is one atom becoming two atoms but at the same time being essentially identical. In other-words it’s the same atom; one atom in two places at once. And so the argument goes, that because we are are all made up of subatomic events like the one just explained, that it must be true that we are also inhabiting many different parallel worlds at once, and these parallel worlds exist primarily because of the choice we didn’t make and as an actualisation of the choice we did not make. But if i only choose A because my counterpart chooses B, then free-will or choice is an illusion.
 
Last edited:
sevenswords said:
Have you looked at the work being done with Atoms in Physics? It is observed that Atoms have to be observed or they will react in a different way, meaning there are options for the Atoms but only by being observed will they stick to the plan and remain constant. Also an Atom can not move from A to B with out both A and B existing first meaning before an Atom was created another one had to be created at the same time and we know there are trillions and trillions and what ever number you want to come up with will still fall short, so all these Atoms had to exist at the same time and had to be observed for order to form. sounds familiar doesn’t it…In the beginning God create all things visible and invisible.
Click to expand...
If you’re talking about what I think you are, then I think the behavior can be attributed to the light (or sensors) used in the experiment.
 
I notice you “liked” my comment of You have some 'splainin to do!

Where do you recognize this from?
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
If you think that quantum processes at the moment of the Big Bang are a direct predicator of specific macro events such as you deciding at 4:00 o’clock on a specific date billions of years later on vanilla rather than chocolate ice cream, then you’d be right.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking specifically about parallel universes.

But lets take a look at what you have written…

It seems that what you wish to say has nothing to do with the subject except indirectly, since we are dealing with subatomic events either way.

If you watch the first video they give the reason why they think the first example of a parallel world is correct. And i am arguing that as a hypothesis it leads to inescapable consequences which, if true, means the hypothesis is invalid as a discoverable truth.

But dealing with your argument separately, the random behaviour of quantum events only allows for the possibility of a free agent in a very indirect fashion. This is to say that because of quantum physics there is nothing to stop a self-determining agent making a choice if such a thing existed. However, a self-determining agent is not the same thing as a random outcome following a blind natural process where there is no self-determining factor at all. An inescapable problem still remains for materialism regardless of quantum physics because a choice, as an effect, would still be the result of blind physical processes regardless of whether it happened randomly or deterministically. If what you do, think, and say, is only the outcome of blind natural processes dating back to the big-bang, then it isn’t a choice at all.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t watch the video. How Guth and Krauss etc got roped into such a hokey migraine producing waste of 40 minutes I don’t know. But then again, Krauss does love the limelight…

But existence is indeterminate. You can draw direct lines between events but it only works backwards. You can work out why something happened but you can’t predict an outcome. At least a single macro outcome from an infinite number of micro (name removed by moderator)uts. You can state that it was indeed the loss of the nail that brought down the kingdom, but you couldn’t state that the kingdom would fall at the moment the nail was lost.
 
Indeed. Watch the entirety of the show and it just so happens that you won’t once find that line said by Ricky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top