Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xdarnold 2521 days ago
Your objections seem to me to arise straightforwardly from a disconnect over the definition of "you". Taking DW's position, and your axiom of unique self, I can resolve the issue by saying something like:

Knowing that you can never be certain which branch you will end up in, bet on the outcome that maximizes the liklihood that you will end up in a branch you favor. Your bet, of course, will follow the form of the Born rule.
2 comments
jeremyjh 2521 days ago
Please explain the disconnect. In MW, there are many future "you" (or "I"), all of which will exist. The fact that they do not share information with each other doesn't change the fact that they are all you (or I). There isn't a single branch you "end up" in, you are in all of them.
link
xdarnold 2521 days ago
Your choice of the future here is arbitrary - we could just as easily say that there are many past and present "you" in the multiverse. This assumes a definition closer to DD/DW's than the author's.

The author seems to assert that his experience of self is incongruous with this definition of your identity. As a historical fact, "you've" always either chosen chocolate or vanilla, not both. The other branches aren't in fact you, any longer.

link
drcode 2521 days ago
What is the meaning of the phrase "which branch you will end up in" given that MWI implies that all branches exist?
link