To say that every possible thing, within all degrees of freedom, happens at every moment in time, is to say that the probabilities of the wave function are *isotropic*. But we know they're not. When you describe many-worlds in such a naive way, and you consider what the mathematics of that must be, you see it has no resemblance to Born's rule, or Schrödinger's equation.

So you're trying to impose an intuitive understanding about what the multiverse must be like onto this picture. The problem is, it's not intuitive at all.

In fact, even the insistence of thinking about these branches of the wave function as separate universes is a mental shortcut. They're not like different dimensions, with 100% copies of our entire universe. They're different branches of the wave function. That's it. Now, does that mean that there are different branches where your life turned out very differently? Yes. There's an exorbitant large number of such worlds. But your macroscopic considerations, such as whether to put milk in your coffee or drink it black, are *emergent* descriptions of the world of decohered quantum systems. These are not branching points. That's a silly Hollywood trope.

The branching happens at the quantum level, as described by the Schrodinger equation. And there is no wave function collapse. What we observe as the collapse of a wave function is where we find ourselves on a new branch of the wave function that is decohered from other branches. That's it. That's all it says. Human choices, and human-scale decisions are not really relevant to this world. To understand many-worlds, you have to understand the math, and stop trying to use mental images of what branching worlds look like.

... which actually brings us back to how this thread started. This is fundamentally about probabilities. Extremely low probability outcomes, have a *low* *amplitude* and thus represent a much smaller fraction of the multiverse in Hilbert space. It does not say that every possibility is equally likely to occur. The probability of an outcome, and in the case of Everettian quantum interpretation, is the amplitude of a world in the multiverse is *proportional* to the square of the wave function. That's a probabilistic distribution. Not a isotropic one.

What we would say is that in the world-split that occurs when that potassium isotope in your stomach decays, the likelihood that the *measurement* of that decay has an effect on your propensity to choose the cheeseburger has an infinitesimally small amplitude.

I think the problem you're having here, is you *are* using fictionalizations of the multiverse from movies and such to back into your understanding.

When a world split happens, it doesn't cause a roll of the dice into ad infinitum outcomes. It creates two branches two branches of the wave function which can be described as:

1. There is a branch of the wave function where the potassium isotope in your stomach has decayed, and was observed to be decay; and

2. There is a branch of the wave function where no decay occurred.

The only *mechanism* that the random decay of that isotope would have to cause you to choose chicken nuggets rather than a cheeseburger, would be if somehow the alpha particle managed to hit some part of your brain in *exactly* the right way, at *exactly* the right time, to cause you to have a change in your cognitive processes in such a way that you act upon a different preference.

But you seem to be thinking that Carroll et. al. are saying is that every time one of these decays occurs, that a world-spit occurs where you make *every* *possible* *choice*. And that's just absolutely not what Carroll or Everett were saying.

I have no doubt that's your preference and not the preference of the vast vast majority of other people who don't want to spend their life considering how to defend their electromagnetic property rights.

Have you read Hobbes and Locke?

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Interventions that force the internalization of non-internalized negative externalities would tend to reduce overall costs. That's just not a very well thought out universal axiom, in my opinion.

Another example is internally harmonized markets, which provide economies of scale advantages that would not be realized in more fragmented markets. A good example here was the US federal government mandating a standard rail gauge for all railroads. Before that happened, there were like more than 5 standard gauges for railways across the US, and trains and cars could not move from railway to railway. After this the government imposed a single standard, transportation costs significantly fell.

But this is still the bizarre anarcho-capitalist argument. That it's the responsibility of my neighbors to arm themselves and come to my house and act as vigilantes to enforce their electromagnetic property right trespass, and then argue with a straight face this would obviously be a more peaceful and harmonious society -- as if the only thing that makes human beings have a propensity to act disharmoniously is living in a nation state and being deprived of the peace-inducing natural forces of pure capitalism.

I don't know, but I find mobile phone networks pretty useful. I'm using one right now!

Do you honestly think that would be a better world? Arguing for homesteading frequencies and that makes you the rightful owner, giving you the right to use violence to protect it, is the kind of fanciful argument that should strain a lot more credulity than it does among Rothbardians and Hoppeans.

Unregulated spectra is regulated. There's wattage limits on the "unregulated" bands that WiFi, Bluetooth and other short range applications use. You can't set up a 1000W broadband 2.4Ghz transmitter. That would jam all of your neighbors WiFi for miles.

I just think human society is a multivariate problem. There isn't One True Thing(tm) standing between us and utopia. That kind of thinking has cost the lives of millions of people in history.

How do you know? You're just stating it as an objective fact without providing a resolution to the very real "tragedy of the commons" problem, there.

Is it? If the government stopped regulating radio spectrum and left it to the market, what do you think would happen? Who would restrain me from jamming all mobile phones, or satellite signals?

I'm pro-bitcoin as hell, but the "bitcoin fixes anything and everything in economics" is just not a reasonable way to think about the world.

I'm am increasingly allergic to the knee-jerk reaction that *all* negative economic news of all kinds is directly attributable to fiat money, and if there was no fiat money, we wouldn't have recessions, there never would have been a trade imbalance between the US and China, there'd never have been any inflation as a result of COVID, etc. This gets *pretty* motivated reason-y at a certain point.

Not true. The SWIFT network did no such thing. Signature Bank, who operates as Binance's correspondent bank in the US imposed the rule. This is being widely misrepresented.

I need to get back into meditation.

Well, I certainly think the number of branches in the wave function is a very large number, as an Everettian!

But why is this an objection?

And note, in your quote of his, he's saying it's possible that a quantum event in your brain could lead to different decisions in a branching of the wave function. Which is true! He's explicitly not saying there's a branch for every possible decision you *could* make. He's just not arguing that.