Tim Maudlin is the philosopher i share the most opinions with:
- the many-worlds interpretation isn´t as promising as modern collapse theories (e.g. GRW) or as hidden variable theories (bohmian theory), because it fails to make sense of the notions "randomness" and "probability" in qm.
- The experimental violation of bells inequalities is the most astounding and underrated scientific discovery of the 20th century. Maybe of the entire history of science.
- Humeanism in general is unsatisfactory (my opinion: because it can´t make sense of the great explanatory power of the laws of nature).
- But the classical antihumean conceptions of laws of nature as formulated by David Armstrong or Alexander Bird are unsatisfactory too (my opinion: they can´t make sense of conservation laws or symmetry laws). So the best choice is a fundamentalism which views the laws of nature as brute facts.
- Naturalized metaphysics is great stuff, but analytical metaphysics is useful too (e.g. Maudlin is also doing conceptual analysis).
- There is no such thing as top-bottom causation (e.g. biological events causes physical events).
- physics in priniciple can´t explain consciousness. That´s because physics always starts with the motion of objects and there is an aspect of consciousness (namely, qualia) that cannot be derived from motion of matter. There is an explanatory gap.
I´m very tired, so i hope this make sense. Good night!