> what is the multi-universe equivalent of this discussion Probably it's a smeared out infinity of quasy-equal probability arising... and the people that see m

> what is the multi-universe equivalent of this discussion Probably it's a smeared out infinity of quasy-equal probability arising... and the people that see multi-universe as a "real thing" in that multiple classical universes actually exist get queasy by this because they intuitively feels this is off as an inifinity of infinity etc. of universes would violate the conservation of some meta-universal thinggy. ...but if you just take the Everett / many-worlds interpretation that many quantum phisicists say they subscribe too as just meaning "the wave function is the only real thing" and "we're just talking of multiple classical universes" as an "interpretation" because classical universes are the only thing that human intuition can grasp, so we'll talk about this to at least get some semblance of useful intution, as the real thing is intuitively incomprehensible and you can only "shut up and do the math" with regards to it :P Humans are really bad at accepting the limitations of their own minds so they try to come up with all sorts of "interpretations" and "understandings" to paper over it and the fret out about made-up problems with these made up interpretations not agreeing with each-other. (Though tbh, I'm not even sure that intuitively working with a non-real-probabilities universe is beyond our intuition... even examples from stuff like human legal practice and other cases where we work with incomplete information allow useful ways to grok this stuff... there's also extra-boolean logical systems like the pentavalent buddhist logic that could be generalized to include negative interactions and quantitative represantations... dunno, maybe we're just very early in understanding the universe... closer to cockroaches than the quasi-gods we imagine ourselves :P ...probably we should just be humble and focus on the math when intuition fails but not give up on trying to expland intuition too...) Edit+: P.S. And it's probably obvious that I dislike superdeterminists because of their conceited lack of humility... but I actually think superdeterminism is a very useful stance, because if there are some/many extra hidden variables, then we need to assume their existence if we are ever to devise experiments to actually get to them... otherwise we're stuck. So maybe the superdeterministic stance is the best for moving experimental particle phisics further faster, the Everettian worldview could get too many people stuch in weird philosophical traps and dead ends. Kind of like Nietzsche said that christianity helped modern science arise and grow (with it's focus of clearly separating good vs. evil, then by extension true vs. false theories etc. rising in the end to the scientific methodology)... superdeterminism could probably helps us make the next baby-steps forward faster :)