rationalskepticism.org

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:
But at least it's not mine.

I've noticed you prefer a more obscure form of argumentation. If you can wave at a dense paper or rather than explain something clearly yourself I think you are strongly inclined to do that.

I prefer to think of it as backing up my ideas. And pointing to a paper, especially one that has been published and reviewed, is a great way to communicate complicated ideas that some may doubt but others have proved.

You could reflect at how you danced around the issue of 'multiple histories' in this topic before gradually being pinned down to some variant of MWI, and then still dodged clarification of how MWI enables free will for humans.

I didn't dance around "multiple histories" The concept was introduced in a paper that proved the possibility of agential indeterminism underpinned by physical state determinism. And when there was some confusion about the authors rather (well mostly) clearly worded paper I introduced another paper that fleshed out the foundation of the idea of multiple histories. That is how one actually pins things down.

But rest assured that I'm not done with multiple histories. And rest assured that I will not always wave a dense paper to do my heavy lifting. I will shortly elaborate on how multiple histories, as defined by List, provide a useful mode of explanation for quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance. Once we understand the role multiple histories play in this phenomenon it will no longer be spooky.