Phillip Goff

at some point reality including the the observer will branch and so one if you're doing it one version of you will be seeing a living cat one version of you will be seeing a dead cat but these these emerging possibilities never interact with each other so what's the overlap so then if in one scenario you open the box the cat's dead the other one the cat's alive um

at some point reality including the the observer will branch and so one if you're doing it one version of you will be seeing a living cat one version of you will be seeing a dead cat but these these emerging possibilities never interact with each other so what's the overlap so then if in one scenario you open the box the cat's dead the other one the cat's alive um

at some point reality including the the observer will branch and so one if you're doing it one version of you will be seeing a living cat one version of you will be seeing a dead cat but these these emerging possibilities never interact with each other so what's the overlap so then if in one scenario you open the box the cat's dead the other one the cat's alive um

I guess it's a form of the multiverse, but these are not... totally separate parallel universes it's it's a kind of emerging universe where what is you now will split into different versions of you and they will go off and live their lives and do different things and it's in theory and infinite different possibilities Is it infinite or is it a very high number? You'll have to ask a physicist.

I guess it's a form of the multiverse, but these are not... totally separate parallel universes it's it's a kind of emerging universe where what is you now will split into different versions of you and they will go off and live their lives and do different things and it's in theory and infinite different possibilities Is it infinite or is it a very high number? You'll have to ask a physicist.

I guess it's a form of the multiverse, but these are not... totally separate parallel universes it's it's a kind of emerging universe where what is you now will split into different versions of you and they will go off and live their lives and do different things and it's in theory and infinite different possibilities Is it infinite or is it a very high number? You'll have to ask a physicist.

Yeah, I mean, it doesn't necessarily correspond to choosing. This is another complexity here. It would depend actually on whether the brain is a classically chaotic system in the sense that outcomes are dependent on very specific initial circumstances. And I think that's something we don't know enough about the brain to establish at this time.

Yeah, I mean, it doesn't necessarily correspond to choosing. This is another complexity here. It would depend actually on whether the brain is a classically chaotic system in the sense that outcomes are dependent on very specific initial circumstances. And I think that's something we don't know enough about the brain to establish at this time.

Yeah, I mean, it doesn't necessarily correspond to choosing. This is another complexity here. It would depend actually on whether the brain is a classically chaotic system in the sense that outcomes are dependent on very specific initial circumstances. And I think that's something we don't know enough about the brain to establish at this time.

But it happens, for example, a lot with the weather because the weather is a chaotic system. Or it happens when we make a quantum measurement experiment. Sean Carroll's got this app where you can split the universe remotely. You can, if you want to make a decision, should I get married or not? It will do a quantum measurement and tell you on the basis of that measurement whether to get married.

But it happens, for example, a lot with the weather because the weather is a chaotic system. Or it happens when we make a quantum measurement experiment. Sean Carroll's got this app where you can split the universe remotely. You can, if you want to make a decision, should I get married or not? It will do a quantum measurement and tell you on the basis of that measurement whether to get married.

But it happens, for example, a lot with the weather because the weather is a chaotic system. Or it happens when we make a quantum measurement experiment. Sean Carroll's got this app where you can split the universe remotely. You can, if you want to make a decision, should I get married or not? It will do a quantum measurement and tell you on the basis of that measurement whether to get married.

And if many worlds is right, the universe will split and there will be one version of you that, if you follow what the app says to do, at least one version of you that gets married and one version of you that doesn't. But why do people take this seriously? I think there's a good case that it's the simplest interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that sounds kind of weird.

And if many worlds is right, the universe will split and there will be one version of you that, if you follow what the app says to do, at least one version of you that gets married and one version of you that doesn't. But why do people take this seriously? I think there's a good case that it's the simplest interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that sounds kind of weird.

And if many worlds is right, the universe will split and there will be one version of you that, if you follow what the app says to do, at least one version of you that gets married and one version of you that doesn't. But why do people take this seriously? I think there's a good case that it's the simplest interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that sounds kind of weird.

There's all these branching universes. How can it be simple? But I think you should judge the simplicity of a theory on the simplicity of its axioms. And what's attractive about many worlds is it's the only version of quantum mechanics that just has the Schrodinger equation. It just sticks with that. All the other interpretations...

There's all these branching universes. How can it be simple? But I think you should judge the simplicity of a theory on the simplicity of its axioms. And what's attractive about many worlds is it's the only version of quantum mechanics that just has the Schrodinger equation. It just sticks with that. All the other interpretations...

There's all these branching universes. How can it be simple? But I think you should judge the simplicity of a theory on the simplicity of its axioms. And what's attractive about many worlds is it's the only version of quantum mechanics that just has the Schrodinger equation. It just sticks with that. All the other interpretations...

add something, add another axiom to explain what happens to the superpositions, what happens to the many cats, right? What gets rid of the many cats? We have spontaneous collapse theories where something new happens to make all the many living and dead cats collapse into one. But the many worlds theorists say, we don't need to do that. All the cats are still there.

add something, add another axiom to explain what happens to the superpositions, what happens to the many cats, right? What gets rid of the many cats? We have spontaneous collapse theories where something new happens to make all the many living and dead cats collapse into one. But the many worlds theorists say, we don't need to do that. All the cats are still there.