what I'm making is an argument using Ockham's Razor. Which is more likely: a universe that has a nearly infinite number of states, with more states splitting off every instant (many universes), or a universe that is kind of "fuzzy", where there's no fixed reality unless you force there to be one by making an observation (that is, via the collapse of a wave functions)? From a strictly design point of view, the second is utterly less complex to manage.Perhaps I'm Paul's ideal reader (or possibly his worst one), because even without the second post, I think I pretty much already buy this. The model he suggests rejects determinism and insists that the outcomes in the universe will be created by agency (by actions and choices, by 'the forced reality' produced through 'making an observation). This is precisely the sort of model I always end up defending in political philosophy.*
And I wonder: does the theory of multiple determinist universes lend itself to taking a deterministic approach to this universe (whichever one we find ourselves in) - to think that history will progress, or at least move in some sort of linear pattern, to conceive of political gains made as something that cannot be lost precisely because we are marching somewhere in time, to think of time itself as a past/present/future that flows like a river? Paul calls the universe 'fuzzy' and I steal from Hamlet/Derrida and say that 'time is out of joint'.
In either case, agency rests not on a fixed identity that will predetermine outcomes, but on a partial and limited capacity to work with, through, and against the fuzzy disjointedness. And the future is not a point that we know and predict but a very fuzzy 'not yet' that we continually look toward just as we strive to bring 'it' about.
*Note: this statement and everything that follows it may all rest on my having utterly misunderstood what Paul is on about.