There are those that think reality (including the universe) is just mathematics. Not modeled by mathematics, but is mathematics. To me, the mathematical universe hypothesis is starting to be the only theory that makes sense.
It might be a distinction without a difference, but I always understood the idea to be that objects we believe to be real are actually mathematical structures.
I see it as sharing some ideas from the we-are-living-in-a-simulation idea. If we were in a simulation, you wouldn’t say data structures and objects are real but would say the table in front of you is actually just data.
That's different from the world being mathematical or informational, which raises the question of what makes it real to us. What breathes life into the equations? Consciousness? Where does consciousness come into the picture?
Other than offering amusement by recreationally asking how many parallel universes can dance on the head of a pin, how should it affect anything?
It is no mercy to know there are kinder universes out there, for with them come those more cruel.
You are already a mote in the sea of infinity, what hope is offered by adding more dimensions to that ocean's depth?
Anyone wise enough to make it this far should know better than to presume that the best available theoretical model is actually the truth. We just use it out of pragmatic lack of a better one (which will likely someday come, but we are approaching the less fun side of the scientific knowledge sigmoid)
If you think there is, what better guide than our best theories of physics so far?
So of course what the nature of the universe is doesn't really affect anything, on a physical level, but our sense of what happens after we're gone does in fact change our behaviors. E.g. Most people contemplate with more horror the possibility of all humanity being wiped out than their own isolated death, even though from the individual perspective it is the same.
Somehow things that cannot possibly matter to us physically still matter to us intellectually.
> It is no mercy to know there are kinder universes out there, for with them come those more cruel.
Well, that's debatable. For example, if you're finding this universe to be particularly cruel, perhaps it is a solace to think it's just one of the universes you must endure, and in some other universe you're having a much easier time.
The Alter where you both exist and is better is not actually guaranteed to exist. In fact basically all them are guaranteed to essentially identical. Quantum splits at a macro level would basically only happen now that we have quantum random number generators to make decisions based on and I doubt that will add up to alters where things are much better.
It's neither fun nor satisfying to think about. It's theoretically impossible to design and run an experiment which would either falsify Copenhagen and not-falsify Many-Worlds, or falsify Many-Worlds and not-falsify Copenhagen. Unless we can do that (we can't) then arguing about Copenhagen vs Many-Worlds is just navel gazing.
I'm fine with arguing about interpretations which are experimentally distinguishable from Copenhagen.
Like sure, you can just do the math and get results and not worry about it. But what's the motivation here?
When you get down to it, he seems to believe many-worlds is true, BUT holds the philosophical position that you shouldn't, like, care. Because there's no practical benefit to caring; because it doesn't help you with the calculations.
But, hey, I still care! What the real nature of reality is is an interesting question! It's fun & satisfying to think about, even if has no direct physical practical implications. Plus, it can certainly have psychological implications, dramatically impacting how we feel about the things that have happened to us and life in general.