Reddit mentions of Quantum Mechanics and Experience

Not a paper but a short-ish book: For my graduate philosophy of quantum mechanics course we used David Z. Albert's 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience' book. It was great.

(Amazon link: http://amzn.com/0674741137 )

• Every Thing Must Go: James Ladyman & Don Ross
  
  
• The Philosophy of Complex Systems: Anthology edited by Cliff Hooker
  
  
• Natural Born Cyborgs: Andy Clark
  
  
• Cognitive Surplus: Clay Shirky
  
  
• Quantum Mechanics and Experience and Time & Chance: David Albert
  
  
• Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: Huw Price
  
  
• Science in the Age of Computer Simulation: Eric Winsberg
  
  
• Ant Encounters: Interactions Networks and Colony Behavior: Deborah Gordon
  
  
• The Construction of Social Reality: John Searle
  
  
• Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity, and Policy: Sandra Mitchell
  
  
• The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence: Robert Batterman
  
  
• Complexity: A Guided Tour: Melanie Mitchell
  
  
• Scientific Metaphysics: Anthology edited James Ladyman
  
  
• Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering: Stephen Strogatz
  
  
• The Ethical Project: Philip Kitcher
  
  
• Foundations of Complex Systems Theories: Sunny Auyang
  
  
• A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming: Paul Edwards
  
  
• "Real Patterns": Dan Dennett (paper)
  
  
• "Why Integrative Pluralism?": Sandra Mitchell (paper)

That's a terrible video. There's a huge amount of misinformation about quantum physics on the internet.

You could try starting with this SEP article

Or check out David Albert or Tim Maudlin. This book is good.

Here are some examples:

The Metaphysics Within Physics by Tim Maudlin

Combining Science and Metaphysics by Matteo Morganti

Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z. Albert

Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality by Patricia S. Churchland

God in an Open Universe: Science, Metaphysics, and Open Theism edited by Thomas Jay Oord, William Hasker, and Dean Zimmerman

>If 99% of all possible observers are in worlds without property X, then being in a world with property X is fairly strong evidence that modal realism is false.

Yes, assuming omniscience, but this presumption cannot ever be justified. Setting aside the objection that 1% is not altogether unlikely on the scale of cosmological fine tunings, the modal realist can always say:

"Though you may think that property X should only appear in the universe to 10^-10^10 % of conscious observers, much more likely is that you are simply mistaken as to what demands must be met in order for physical laws to be compatible with conscious observers in any particular universe."

>So either there's something special about consciousness that only allows it to arise in universes which have lots of structure everywhere, we need some less naive way to quantify over possible worlds that massively increases the density of worlds with sensible physical laws, or modal realism is almost certainly false.

It seems like you've slipped in a commitment to non-haeccitism about personal identity. If you are capable of experiencing multiple worlds at once, the existence of Boltzmann brains should pose no problem for you. While the majority of "worlds" containing mathematical substructures isomorphic to particular brain states corresponding to the course of your own life will not be stable, what you experience must be (says the modal realist) an emergent quasi-classical universe, for whatever reason to do with how the large scale structure of the mathematical universe tracks personal identity over isomorphic substructures.

This is a greatly underserved area of philosophy, but there is some work broaching the edge. Here are some good resources.

If you want a book about quantum mechanics, I'd recommend Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z. Albert (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-D-Albert/dp/0674741137/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267649766&sr=8-2), as it is intended to be "accessible to anyone with high school mathematics". Just as with the previous book, this doesn't touch on the topics you mention, but is a better bet if you are looking for more information on quantum mechanics itself.

This is probably the best book for your situation. It was written to help philosophy grads turn into philosophers of physics. It does the mathematical basics you need to understand QM, but its different from a QM textbook in that instead of going on to look at applications like the simple harmonic oscillator or the hydrogen atom it goes on to look at conceptual issues. It won't give you the grounding you need to actually do physics, but it will let you think about it properly.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Albert/dp/0674741137

For a good popular overview that has a strong historical focus, this is great: Quantum

Personally, and I think most philosophers of quantum physics, think Krauss is a bit of a hack when it comes to exploring the conceptual and foundational elements of quantum physics. See this: Krauss review

Albert actually has a really good introduction book to quantum mechanics that focuses on the more conceptual side of things, aimed at those with little background in physics: Quantum Mechanics and Experience

You're right, I'm not a physicist, but I'm well educated in physics. On the other hand, it seems that you didn't read my post, and that you are not well acquainted with either the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor with the rich literature in philosophy of science with respect to the MWI and it's implications. I suggest you take a look at David Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience, David Wallace's The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation and the anthology Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality.

Albert works as a philosopher (at Columbia U, very prestigious). But he's a post-grad in theoretical physics. If by physicist you mean someone who works up calculations, he is not. He is someone who understands physics and philosophy very well however. He works among physicists and is a leading person on the philosophy of QM. Quantum Mechanics and Experience is a staple intro in undergrad.