Does wigner's friend and the Mandela effect prove that at least one of these is true?

1.) Solipsism is true
2.) The universe isn't locally real
3.) free will doesn't exist

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36219739/

Multiverse perceptional overlap or local timeline branch divergence instance. Spontaneous synchronicity is observed in nature, including between two humans brainwaves when talking to each other. The synchronous wave/principal can theoretically move both forward and backwards in time., resulting in seemingly bizarre phenomena like event synchrons (think of someone and they call you instantly), mandela effects/altered memory perception, deja vu (you've been there and done this before), and many others. Essentially, reality is continuously synchronous between you and everything else and occasionally adjusts loads and perceptions.

>>16724984
That's what I figured
It sounds just like this https://www.quatism.com/theory.htm

Also what do you think of this? Is it true and would it work? It's supposed to make you wealthier and like luckier with money even if you never win the lottery jackpot on this worldline/timeline
https://www.quatism.com/lottery.htm

Make a list of things you want to acquire, not every-day stuff but nice-to-haves, and not consumable items, things which stick around.
Make sue the list is big and encompasses your genuine desires as much as is reasonable.
Purchase from the list over time but make sure it's bigger than you'll ever afford in full.
Some prioritization of items is ok, but it's best to draw quantum random numbers to map to the list of items to decide what to get next.
Then (note the past-tense, you should keep adding to the list over time, but it needs to be created prior) draw some quantum random numbers and map them to lottery tickets. Play those ticket numbers.
If you find yourself on the winning worldline buy everything on the list and keep it around as you had intended, beware of things which could make you lose everything and be responsible with the money.
This has two primary effects in play:
>the acquisition lists acts to synchronize your divergent worldlines between non-winning and winning worldlines
>the lottery win is guaranteed in 1 set of worldlines, very small percentage overall, but it's no longer a binary thing of win/lose, it's guaranteed, you're just unlikely to experience it
The result is the temporal magnetism pulls your winning self closer to the losing ones and the losing ones closer to the winning one but with the winning self existing whereas before it did not anywhere near you. . Don't get "smart" about it (e.g. being an asshole) on the winning worldline and abandon the acquisition list, or it does nothing for your other selves

Bump

>>16724981 (OP)
>3.) free will doesn't exist
What's with people and free will retardation? There's nothing in nature that behaves like that so why assume it is a thing? Morality is the same, nothing in nature, but it must be true, because... it just must ok?

>>16725033
Religion?
Pride?
Capitalism?
Retributive justice?

>>16724981 (OP)
>The universe isn't locally real
Of course not. QFT is just statistical mechanics set with phenomenological boundary conditions

>>16725033
>There's nothing in nature that behaves like that
The entire universe has a strong trend towards "increasing complexity," which means "an expansion of possible interactions," in other words FREEDOM.
The universe is not at all like a machine, but instead a tapestry of finite co-creative entities. Creativity is inherent to the universe without requiring design or a "cosmic mind."

>>16725058
Yeah sometimes I forget we are only human, still, its extremely frustrating to see that in academic spaces, like how appalled most of the scientific community is to the idea of superdeterminism and whatnot

>>16725098
Like God?
I don't understand what you mean
>>16725084
I don't understand any of that

>>16725104
I remember reading a post here of a guy saying super determininism = free will basically I'll have to find it

>>16725110
>I don't understand what you mean
What do you have trouble understanding about this statement?

>The entire universe has a strong trend towards "increasing complexity," which means "an expansion of possible interactions," in other words FREEDOM.

>>16725117
Isn't the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics mean the universe is continually getting increasingly complex and keeps having more possible interactions?
But it's deterministic

PHYSICS PHD WHO BELIEVES IN THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION LIVE RIGHT NOW YOU CAN CALL IN AND DEBATE HIM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxv1yFYUE_I&pp=0AUB

>>16725118
>the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.
I don't entertain schizophrenia disguised as science.

>>16724981 (OP)
I want to say op is a fag theory. Has there been any proof of op is a fag theory, or is it still just a theory?

>>16725128
False analogy

>>16725033
>there is nothing like morality in nature
>implying humans arent "natural"

>>16724981 (OP)
No. Human memory is fallible.

>>16725033
https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/chimps_and_bonobos_prove_that_moral_behavior_is_a_product_of_evolution/

>>16724981 (OP)
The only thing the Mandela effect proves is the depth of arrogance of some people.
>This fact I thought I knew isn't right
>Does that mean I'm wrong?
>No! I'm actually correct in a different universe, the universe just changed around me
Like dawg, just admit you're wrong holy shit.
>B...but hundreds of people remember it differently in the same way
Proves nothing. Literally. I don't care if you can show me a million people that think the Jew bears were pronounced ever so slightly differently, all this proves to me is people are similar and remember things similarly. This is the most parsimonious explanation and, without a shadow of a doubt, the correct explanation. Go fuck your self and your "Mandela effect" bullshit. Faggot.

>>16725654
No

Bump

Bump

>>16725465
Not really implying we aren't natural, but that the concept of right and wrong only exists in our mind not in the natural world, like dragons and fairies don't exist in the natural world, only in our minds
>>16725559
Moral behaviour, not morality, quite different

>wigners friend
maybe

>mandela effect
nigga no

>>16726088
I agree you can't just say "murder is objectively/mind independently wrong" but isn't utilitarianism an example of objective morality

>>16726291
Nope, utilitarianism is a normative claim, objectivity is meta-ethics, it tells you what is right (maximize utility) not what rightness is (mind-independent and objective, or subjective, or not), you can even be a utilitarian while believing that all moral claims are wrong with no objective justification: https://philarchive.org/archive/JAQUFT

>>16724981 (OP)
How the Mandela effect might work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYQ2x_nViYk

>>16726061
>>16725827
>>16725009
please stop