Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[James Redford]

Well there's a relief; for a moment, I thought you were going dragoon me into the intellectual elite

It's a big world, and there's only so much time to go around. Fringe ideas inevitably get shorter shrift. But it's nice to see Tipler has devoted followers.

It's not a "[f]ringe idea[]", but rather standard physics (see below). You ought to be ashamed of your willful ignorance on this issue, but that would require more self-awareness on your part than you currently possess.

You're not merely an atheist, but rather an antitheist. You're a theophobe who goes out of your way to insert your self-admitted willful ignorance into discussions on matters which you have no interest in actually learning about, all in order to sow doubt in God. You don't merely lack a belief in God, but rather you actively hate God and desire that God not exist.

If you actually do not believe that God exists, then why the need to proselytize others to that position? If God does not exist, then you and everyone you know is going to become a rotting, stinking corpse; and that will be that.

Why not just take things easy, and stop worrying about the matter? Winning converts to your position isn't going to change anything. We're all still just going to end up as nothing more than rotting, stinking corpses whether people believe as you do or if people believe that there is life after death. If your position is correct, then you're just spinning your wheels to no effect with your proselytizing efforts. Nothing in the end changes.

There is a contradiction with your missionary efforts. You are not behaving as if you believe that your overt position is true. Rather, you are behaving as a psychologically self-conflicted individual. You are acting as if you subconsciously do believe that God does exist, yet that you are rebelling against God and wish others to, as well. That is, you are behaving as if you subconsciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity, and that you wish everyone else to go to Hell for all eternity.

As I have elsewhere demonstrated [1], there is no question that the demons do exist. Anything that one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The issue revolves around what their actual ontological nature is. I say that they exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.

You are going through the motions as if these particular Minskian agent subset programs are subconsciously controlling you. Yet, regardless, a contradiction exists between your overt position and your missionary efforts.

And in all this, do not be so surprised. Throughout history there have been many apostles of Hell, attempting to win disciples of Hell. That you would be among their ranks is nothing so shocking. It's human apes acting like the apes they are.

As to why people often wish to go to Hell, it's because Hell is written into our DNA code. Hell is familiar. Hell is family. It's something the human ape mind can comprehend. Indeed, the human apes manufacture Hell on their assembly-lines, with their bombs, their poison gasses, their truncheons, their shackles. Humans know well the methods of Hell.

Whereas human apes have an extreme skepticism toward Heaven, because Heaven is strange. Heaven is unfamiliar. Heaven is not of this world.

-----

Note:

1. James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism , Societal Sadomasochism | Christian Forums .

* * * * *

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, WebCite query result , Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip .)

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T, WebCite query result . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, https://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, https://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X, https://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H, https://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS .

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://dauns01.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer [Publisher], "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see the following resources:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

 

[Chesterton]

Wiki provides one of the least helpful (if correct) explanations ever: "A quantum system is a portion of the whole Universe which is taken under consideration to make analysis"

Agreed that that is not very helpful, lol.

...you behave like a classical object.

Are you flirting with me?

Your skin is causing photons to change their state by being absorbed or reflected, with a certain probability for either to occur. These are quantum events or measurements.

A hammer lying on the counter would cause those changes, too. So everything would. It'd probably be better to ask what doesn't cause measurement. If I put the hammer in the tool box and close the lid, does it get more classical? It's still going to rest on the bottom or on other tools which will result in interaction between its atoms and those of the other things, right?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, everything is part of the universal wavefunction, so everything is a quantum system. But when we talk explicitly of 'quantum systems' it means we're looking at the physics in terms of quantum effects rather than in a classical way. As I already explained, at macro-scale, quantum systems behave as approximations to classical systems, any superpositions decohere immediately, so we don't normally see quantum effects. I suspect Carroll was pointing out a mistaken way to think of MWI.

No, Carroll was pretty much saying that. He said the same thing in another video in response to an interviewer, that if you're driving and make a left turn, another "you" will make a right turn.

Macro-scale decisions are generally not thought to be the result of quantum superpositions - clumps of brain cells are too large for significant quantum effects to manifest (although there is evidence for certain metastable brain structures responding to quantum influences in special circumstances, such as bird navigation).

I've heard quantum processes take place via quibits inside microtubules in the human brain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A hammer lying on the counter would cause those changes, too. So everything would.

Pretty much.

The moon exists whether or not anyone is looking at it.

If you want to know where it is, you have to look at it (make an observation or measurement). But photons from the moon are bouncing off rocks and hammers and whatever all the time, making 'measurements' or 'observations' of the moon.

 

[SelfSim]

... The moon exists whether or not anyone is looking at it.

One might say one should observe caution when introducing how the concept of 'the moon' comes to 'exist' during conversations about QM.
I think the fundamentally dissimilar QM interpretations might be directly traced back to such Realist philosophical arguments, which are not necessarily objectively evidenced based.

When we speak of 'the moon', we should remember that in science, we are still speaking about a concept we refer to as 'the moon' .. and it is that concept which science tests prior to classifying it as being objectively real, (and that's all that is being tested).

 

[SelfSim]

Not sure how this follows - as I see it, in conscious collapse interpretations we don't have to understand the physics to collapse the wavefunction, and such interpretations don't seem to make sense outside of a dualist worldview, so consciousness would not necessarily be constrained by size - or indeed, the laws of physics in general (i.e. it's a kind of magic ).

Ok .. I'll bite ..
No more magical than saying that the wavefunction 'physically exists' (in order to collapse it) independently from any mind which has evidently conceived of it in the first place.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, Carroll was pretty much saying that. He said the same thing in another video in response to an interviewer, that if you're driving and make a left turn, another "you" will make a right turn.

OK, well it's not what he says in his books and AMAs (Ask Me Anything), so I assume it must be an analogy - I'm curious, do you have a link to the videos in question?

I've heard quantum processes take place via quibits inside microtubules in the human brain.

That sounds like Penrose & Hameroff's 'Orch-OR' (Orchestrated Objective Reduction). When you look at the neurobiology paper by Anirban Bandyopadhyay & co. that it's based on, you'll find it's rather... er, eccentric - the abstract talks of the electronic (transmitted ac power) and optical properties (fluorescence) of microtubules (which, btw, are found in all eukaryotic cells), and proudly says, "We have carried out several tricky state-of-the-art experiments". It's hard to see how it got published. In Penrose & Hameroff's presentation, this is followed by a lot of speculative handwaving involving quantum gravity (an as-yet unresolved problem) which really explains nothing about consciousness (the intended target).

Penrose thinks that consciousness must be non-computational (because... Godel's theorems) and so something equally mysterious must be behind it - hence quantum... stuff. There's a YouTube video where he basically admits this. There also seem to be some dubious connections between Hameroff, Bandyopadhyay, quantum mysticism, and Deepak Chopra, which is not a good sign. Penrose is a clever man, and a great physicist, but he's not a biologist; I think he's been had, but that's my unsubstantiated guesswork.

Anyhow, there are numerous criticisms of this whole idea in the Wiki link and here: Falsifications of Orch-OR, and here: Gaps in Penrose's Toilings (a bad pun on Penrose Tiling).

Who knows, Penrose may be right; I seriously doubt it, but at least he's trying.

 

[Chesterton]

Pretty much.

The moon exists whether or not anyone is looking at it.

If you want to know where it is, you have to look at it (make an observation or measurement). But photons from the moon are bouncing off rocks and hammers and whatever all the time, making 'measurements' or 'observations' of the moon.

Multiverse is not science. The multiplication of infinities is a fantasy that even madmen would laugh at. It will fall by the wayside 10 or 20 years from now.

 

[Chesterton]

OK, well it's not what he says in his books and AMAs (Ask Me Anything), so I assume it must be an analogy - I'm curious, do you have a link to the videos in question?

It's in the first two minutes of this video:

And about car driving, it's at the 2:35 mark:

 

[essentialsaltes]

Multiverse is not science. The multiplication of infinities is a fantasy that even madmen would laugh at. It will fall by the wayside 10 or 20 years from now.

Why are you telling me this? My post did not reference any multiverses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not a "[f]ringe idea[]", but rather standard physics (see below). You ought to be ashamed of your willful ignorance on this issue, but that would require more self-awareness on your part than you currently possess.

You're not merely an atheist, but rather an antitheist. You're a theophobe who goes out of your way to insert your self-admitted willful ignorance into discussions on matters which you have no interest in actually learning about, all in order to sow doubt in God. You don't merely lack a belief in God, but rather you actively hate God and desire that God not exist.

If you actually do not believe that God exists, then why the need to proselytize others to that position? If God does not exist, then you and everyone you know is going to become a rotting, stinking corpse; and that will be that.

Why not just take things easy, and stop worrying about the matter? Winning converts to your position isn't going to change anything. We're all still just going to end up as nothing more than rotting, stinking corpses whether people believe as you do or if people believe that there is life after death. If your position is correct, then you're just spinning your wheels to no effect with your proselytizing efforts. Nothing in the end changes.

There is a contradiction with your missionary efforts. You are not behaving as if you believe that your overt position is true. Rather, you are behaving as a psychologically self-conflicted individual. You are acting as if you subconsciously do believe that God does exist, yet that you are rebelling against God and wish others to, as well. That is, you are behaving as if you subconsciously desire to go to Hell for all eternity, and that you wish everyone else to go to Hell for all eternity.

As I have elsewhere demonstrated [1], there is no question that the demons do exist. Anything that one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The issue revolves around what their actual ontological nature is. I say that they exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.

You are going through the motions as if these particular Minskian agent subset programs are subconsciously controlling you. Yet, regardless, a contradiction exists between your overt position and your missionary efforts.

And in all this, do not be so surprised. Throughout history there have been many apostles of Hell, attempting to win disciples of Hell. That you would be among their ranks is nothing so shocking. It's human apes acting like the apes they are.

As to why people often wish to go to Hell, it's because Hell is written into our DNA code. Hell is familiar. Hell is family. It's something the human ape mind can comprehend. Indeed, the human apes manufacture Hell on their assembly-lines, with their bombs, their poison gasses, their truncheons, their shackles. Humans know well the methods of Hell.

Whereas human apes have an extreme skepticism toward Heaven, because Heaven is strange. Heaven is unfamiliar. Heaven is not of this world.

Well, I'll let others judge whether that rant is a reasonable and rational response to what I posted; meanwhile, I sincerely hope you get the professional help you clearly need.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's in the first two minutes of this video:

And about car driving, it's at the 2:35 mark:

OK; in the first video he uses the Universe Splitter app, which I've already explained. Whether he really does hop left or right in either resulting branch is up to him, not quantum mechanics - it's a promise he's made to himself. So in this example, assuming the Universe Splitter works as advertised, the wavefunction branches, and, if he (both branch versions of him) wishes, he can jump left in one branch and right in the other - of course, neither version of him can know whether the other has followed through on the promise.

In the second video, it's clearly an explanatory analogy - the clue is in the use of the word 'like' by Brady, "... is this like a car getting to a T junction..." and Sean, "It's basically like that...", and, of course, when Sean continues, "It's kind of like - this is just an analogy, it's not exactly like this..." That last is necessary because objects the size of a car don't go into superposition like that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok .. I'll bite ..
No more magical than saying that the wavefunction 'physically exists' (in order to collapse it) independently from any mind which has evidently conceived of it in the first place.

That view seems to make everything we perceive magical.

 

[SelfSim]

That view seems to make everything we perceive magical.

.. or simply a mystery worthy of further investigation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. or simply a mystery worthy of further investigation.

Which is what science does - and we have little choice but to conceive of entities for our observations and the models for the behaviours we observe.

 

[Chesterton]

Why are you telling me this? My post did not reference any multiverses.

All those electrons used in your post probably created an infinity of multiverses.

 

[Chesterton]

OK; in the first video he uses the Universe Splitter app, which I've already explained. Whether he really does hop left or right in either resulting branch is up to him, not quantum mechanics - it's a promise he's made to himself. So in this example, assuming the Universe Splitter works as advertised, the wavefunction branches, and, if he (both branch versions of him) wishes, he can jump left in one branch and right in the other - of course, neither version of him can know whether the other has followed through on the promise.

Are you saying free will is compatible with MWI?

In the second video, it's clearly an explanatory analogy - the clue is in the use of the word 'like' by Brady, "... is this like a car getting to a T junction..." and Sean, "It's basically like that...", and, of course, when Sean continues, "It's kind of like - this is just an analogy, it's not exactly like this..." That last is necessary because objects the size of a car don't go into superposition like that.

Yeah, after I listened a second time, I agree it was probably just used for illustrative purposes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying free will is compatible with MWI?

It doesn't change anything - it's no different from any other interpretation (or classical physics) in that respect.

Compatibilist free will, as the moniker suggests, is compatible with any interpretation. Dualist free will isn't really compatible with any except conscious collapse interpretations, which tend to lead to dualism, which is problematic in science, and is, I suspect, why they've been dropped by the mainstream.

So, as usual with free will, it depends on the definition. I'm happy to discuss it - what's your definition of free will?

 

[SelfSim]

Which is what science does - and we have little choice but to conceive of entities for our observations and the models for the behaviours we observe.

Thinking scientifically is a decision we make.
Its probably not a terrific one either .. except for all the other ways of explaining things.
History has shown that those 'other' ways tend to end up restricting our worldview.
Its always nice to explore what-we-don't-know-yet.

 

[Chesterton]

It doesn't change anything - it's no different from any other interpretation (or classical physics) in that respect.

After I type this post I'm going to make a cup of coffee. Now I have to wonder if I've actually made the decision to have coffee, or whether a wave function is forcing the decision on me, because another pre-existing "me" decided not to have coffee, or to have tea, lol. I have to wonder if I'm the brancher or the branchee. The branchee, the new thing created ex nihilo, seems to get created only to obey the wave function in a given instance at least, so that obviously impinges on his/her will.

I used a macro example of me making coffee just for simplicity, because I'm still foggy on when and how a universe splitting occurs, as pertains to everyday "macro" objects. Sub-atomic particles are used in each of the five senses which I use to experience the world, or just to exist for that matter, so I'm really not clear what's going on with that.

Compatibilist free will, as the moniker suggests, is compatible with any interpretation. Dualist free will isn't really compatible with any except conscious collapse interpretations, which tend to lead to dualism, which is problematic in science, and is, I suspect, why they've been dropped by the mainstream.

So, as usual with free will, it depends on the definition. I'm happy to discuss it - what's your definition of free will?

It's simply the ability of the mind to freely choose among available options of thought and action, subject to physical constraints of course. I believe it's supernatural. It's one of the reasons I'm a Christian. I realized free will is impossible using only the physics of nature, yet we all know we have it. It's as plain as the nose on your face.