oh, i have no investment in that position and don't think it's the case, but Conway here doesn't refute it either, in the whole thing free will is just a black box hypothetical causal phenomenon whose provenance isn't raised as a question
-
-
Conway explicitly provides a model of free will which doesn't rely on Many Worlds.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
he provides a model of necessary derivation of free will of collections of particles from free will of particles, he doesn't provide a model of free will at all; his fully baseless axiom of free will could rely on many-worlds or not, the question isn't asked
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
"could rely or not" reduces to "does not rely"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
okay yeah but it doesn't reduce to "refutes"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"the only way" vs. "does not rely" -> refutation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
enh nah because it isn't speaking to the question pomo's assertion addresses at all, a many-worlds-derived free will would slot into the model as well as any other kind
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I thought I had made this clear, but let me try again: It is sufficient to show that Many Worlds is not a /necessary/ predicate of Free Will.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @djinnius @chaosprime and
You seem to be confusing this for a refutation of Many Worlds itself, which it isn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
nah, i'm just saying that because it's treating free will as a black box it's intentionally avoiding saying anything about what's in the box, and why would it, that's not the point it's making
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
as i learned trying to resolve community disputes on Wikipedia, addressing one question at a time is very nearly too many
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.