From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jan  1 01:09:22 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:09:22 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>


On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> So for those of you focused on computations as to whether or not  
> cold fusion may or may not be feasible, I would offer an alternate  
> problem, "When will we reincarnate Sasha?".  Note the the question  
> is not conditional.  We will have the ability to do this.  We could  
> get into discussions as to whether or not the entity is a "greater"  
> or "lesser" Sasha.  I would argue that the wold is a lesser place  
> with Sasha in absence, and thus we should seek to fill that void.
>

You can't, regardless of computational capacity.  The vast majority of  
the information is gone.  It would require time-travel to regain it.   
Anything less is a simulacrum acting sort of like some people remember  
Sasha acting some of the time.  I would argue that the world will be a  
better place when we focus on what is actually doable even in theory  
and let go of what we can do nothing about.  We might want to start  
with what is most critical to do something about now or real soon now.

- samantha





From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jan  1 02:03:13 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:03:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>

Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007!
Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not
doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to
imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is
indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But
"there are more things in heaven and earth...".
Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the
ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same
thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not
create logical paradoxes.
And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical
paradoxes in the MWI.
If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or
later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha,
I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years.
I wrote on this a couple of years ago and remember some interesting
comments by Samantha. Now I have moved the article to a new home:
http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/
and look forward to your comments. By the way I will expand this
article in a book titled "Transcendent Engineering".
G.

On 1/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>
> > So for those of you focused on computations as to whether or not
> > cold fusion may or may not be feasible, I would offer an alternate
> > problem, "When will we reincarnate Sasha?".  Note the the question
> > is not conditional.  We will have the ability to do this.  We could
> > get into discussions as to whether or not the entity is a "greater"
> > or "lesser" Sasha.  I would argue that the wold is a lesser place
> > with Sasha in absence, and thus we should seek to fill that void.
> >
>
> You can't, regardless of computational capacity.  The vast majority of
> the information is gone.  It would require time-travel to regain it.
> Anything less is a simulacrum acting sort of like some people remember
> Sasha acting some of the time.  I would argue that the world will be a
> better place when we focus on what is actually doable even in theory
> and let go of what we can do nothing about.  We might want to start
> with what is most critical to do something about now or real soon now.
>
> - samantha

From asa at nada.kth.se  Mon Jan  1 02:04:23 2007
From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:04:23 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007
Message-ID: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm

French marchers say 'non' to 2007

Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a
light-hearted march against it.

Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the
western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is
better!"

The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race"
and declare a moratorium on the future.

The protest was held in the rain and organisers joked that even the
weather was against the New Year.

The tension mounted as the minutes ticked away towards midnight - but the
arrival of 2007 did nothing to dampen their enthusiasm.

The protesters began to chant: "No to 2008!"

They vowed to stage a similar protest on 31 December 2007 on the
Champs-Elysees avenue in Paris.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University



From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Mon Jan  1 02:59:36 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:59:36 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>

Will it ever be possible to bring back people like Sasha? I don't know.
There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law that would
permit such a thing even in principle, but we don't know everything about
how the universe works; maybe some future understanding will give a
different verdict.

But it's not something that merits argument. There's a distinction to be
drawn between ultimate vision and current effort.

Most people (myself included) need some sort of transcendent vision to
inspire them to work towards a brighter future. Different visions work for
different people; the idea that our dead might ultimately be restored is a
beautiful one, and will be all the more so if it turns out to be true; let
those of us who can't quite believe it acknowledge the unknowability and
hold onto something that does work for us.

The environmentalists have a saying: think globally, act locally. That's
exactly what we need to do, except in time rather than space. Let's not
confuse the ultimate and the imminent; rather let our transcendent visions
inspire us to work on projects that can be realistically accomplished in the
foreseeable future. Does it make sense to work today on a resurrection
machine? No. Does it make sense to work today on, say, molecular electronic
computers, with the idea that they might be a step on the road that
eventually leads to the dead being restored - and will have a lot of other
applications before then? Absolutely.

"Think globally, act locally" - I wish I were that good at coining phrases!
It would be nice if we did have an equally snappy temporal version - any
ideas anyone?

Happy 2007!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/b0aa0a05/attachment.html 

From eugen at leitl.org  Mon Jan  1 03:04:16 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:04:16 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] global warming eats island
In-Reply-To: <200701010420.l014KNmH004264@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061231145953.03ab87f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<200701010420.l014KNmH004264@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20070101110416.GE6974@leitl.org>

On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 08:18:56PM -0800, spike wrote:

> Cool it a bit?  Why?  I woulda said warm it a bit.

Because shifting precipitation patterns could mean crop failure and starvation 
to hundreds millions of people. Because they would further destabilize the
already taxed global ecosystem. Because they could cause a runaway methane
clathrate melt. Because [...].

While we don't have the technology to insulate each individual human from
these changes, we should homeostate the climate where it is.
 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/2d263b84/attachment.bin 

From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Jan  1 03:09:24 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:09:24 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520701010309k46734dfbja8f3f1544637b290@mail.gmail.com>

"Think big, act small" may work for both space and time.
I completely agree with what you say. The idea that they might be a
step on the road that eventually leads to the dead being restored may
be a powerful motivation (for some) to do their best at developing
today's molecular electronic computers.
G.


On 1/1/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> Will it ever be possible to bring back people like Sasha? I don't know.
> There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law that would
> permit such a thing even in principle, but we don't know everything about
> how the universe works; maybe some future understanding will give a
> different verdict.
>
> But it's not something that merits argument. There's a distinction to be
> drawn between ultimate vision and current effort.
>
> Most people (myself included) need some sort of transcendent vision to
> inspire them to work towards a brighter future. Different visions work for
> different people; the idea that our dead might ultimately be restored is a
> beautiful one, and will be all the more so if it turns out to be true; let
> those of us who can't quite believe it acknowledge the unknowability and
> hold onto something that does work for us.
>
> The environmentalists have a saying: think globally, act locally. That's
> exactly what we need to do, except in time rather than space. Let's not
> confuse the ultimate and the imminent; rather let our transcendent visions
> inspire us to work on projects that can be realistically accomplished in the
> foreseeable future. Does it make sense to work today on a resurrection
> machine? No. Does it make sense to work today on, say, molecular electronic
> computers, with the idea that they might be a step on the road that
> eventually leads to the dead being restored - and will have a lot of other
> applications before then? Absolutely.
>
> "Think globally, act locally" - I wish I were that good at coining phrases!
> It would be nice if we did have an equally snappy temporal version - any
> ideas anyone?
>
> Happy 2007!
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>

From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Mon Jan  1 04:30:13 2007
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 06:30:13 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: BlogNomic
Message-ID: <5366105b0701010430h66ff819aid72a09e543b2d209@mail.gmail.com>

Monday, 1 January 2007

Hello all:

Some of you might have already seen this in your respective del.icio.us inboxes.

http://blognomic.com/

http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ

Anyone have any experience with this, or any other recent instance of Nomic?

-- 
Jay Dugger
http://jaydugger.suprglu.com
Sometimes the delete key serves best.

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 09:17:18 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:17:18 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] WANTED: Extropy Conference
 Proceedings and Audio Recordings.
In-Reply-To: <5366105b0612311554x3c05160ja1abe731cd2ae432@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <5366105b0612311554x3c05160ja1abe731cd2ae432@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101111652.042099e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 05:54 PM 12/31/2006, Jay Dugger wrote:
>Sunday, 31 December 2006
>
>Hello all:
>
>If anyone has proceedings or audio recordings of the Extropy
>conferences, please contact me off-list.

Okay :-)

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/45012328/attachment.html 

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 09:34:59 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:34:59 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] test
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101113449.040b2998@pop-server.austin.rr.com>



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 08:59:39 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:59:39 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101105805.04209f88@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Remembering to quote Sasha in our writings, credit him for his ideas, and 
love him is one way that we can keep him alive.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/8c72ca76/attachment.html 

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 09:35:52 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:35:52 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101113545.0424ae48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 04:04 AM 1/1/2007, Anders Sandberg wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm
>
>French marchers say 'non' to 2007
>
>Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a
>light-hearted march against it.
>
>Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the
>western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is
>better!"
>
>The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race"
>and declare a moratorium on the future.
"The name Fonacon comes from the group's title - Front d'opposition ? la 
nouvelle ann?e and Comit? d'Organistion National (acronym "con", which 
means daft). The organisers, who prefer to remain anonymous, say it is 
illogical that people should celebrate the passing of time. The ending of a 
year is another step towards the grave and therefore a tragedy, not a cause 
for joy.
"The idea, which began in the village of Chauch?, south of Nantes last 
year, was launched nationally at a spoof 'terrorist' press conference. The 
members of the anti-New Year front, including several otherwise 
conventional local businessmen and women, dressed up in hoods and masks."

But it is not just the future I am learning.  It is to also about stopping 
aging and death!  The irony is that while this may seem like a 
anti-future(ist) trend, it may very well be transhumanist in part.  Please 
read on:
"'It is about time that the passage of time ended,' said one of the hooded 
organisers. 'We are fed up with getting older. Why should we follow the 
fashion? The planet is getting older and warmer. Not us. Stop this mad race 
towards death.'"

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/3bea449a/attachment.html 

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 09:50:41 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:50:41 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Biotech Era only part of the concept
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101114413.0405a328@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

The phrase "Biotech Era" is used to reference biotechnology as the use of 
living organisms to produce engineered products that can modify health or 
the environment through molecular, cell and structural biologysuch as 
recombinant DNA-based drugs, gene therapy, monoclonal antibodies, 
engineered proteins and tissues, liposomes and other drug delivery systems, 
and agricultural as well as industrial products. (ref. Dr. Authur 
Levine).  But this does not adequately describe the methods for developing 
the transhuman -posthuman body/mind (material (embodied) or immaterial) and 
tools or methods for protecting/sustaining the environment.

What phrase or term is used to reference the era of using biotech, 
nanotech, AI, AGI, and robotics to produce engineered products that can 
modify health or the environment?


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/5683a470/attachment.html 

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 09:35:37 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:35:37 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101113529.04158008@pop-server.austin.rr.com>


Remembering to quote Sasha in our writings, credit him for his ideas, and 
love him is one way that we can keep him alive.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/9b1b3cf2/attachment.html 

From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  1 10:31:11 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:31:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
Message-ID: <op.tlhm19weivvpma@shuttle>

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:00:26 -0500, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>  
wrote:

> gts wrote:
>
>> Which statement is most true?
>>
>> A) E is frequent because it is probable.
>> B) E is probable because it is frequent.
>
> It would be helpful, highlighted by the example of (A), to clarify the
> complementary usage of "probability" and "likelihood".  Once again,
> clear terminology is vital...

The purpose of my question is to help the reader discover on his own which  
of the two objectivist interpretations of probability he is likely to  
prefer (while leaving open the question of subjective/epistemic  
interpretations).

I could write (A) as "E is frequent because it is has a high propensity to  
occur" but this would at least partially defeat the purpose of the  
exercise.

(But now the cat is out of the bag in any case. So much for the Socratic  
method. :)

(A) seems most correct to me, but I wonder if perhaps others here might  
disagree. Certainly frequency theorists would prefer (B).

-gts


From ben at goertzel.org  Mon Jan  1 10:54:42 2007
From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 13:54:42 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <op.tlf7sdjtivvpma@shuttle>
References: <op.tlf7sdjtivvpma@shuttle>
Message-ID: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

> 1) The Logical Theory, in which probability is defined as a degree of
> rational belief (Keynes).
>
> 2) The Subjective Theory, in which probability is a degree of belief of a
> particular individual (Ramsey, De Finetti).

The most consistent interpretational approach, I believe, is a fusion
of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory as enabled by Cox's
Theorem.

I.e., a probability is a crude way of encapsulating a degree of belief
of a particular individual.  And, if an individual is completely
rational, then their degrees of belief will completely obey the laws
of probability.  If an individual is partially rational, then their
degrees of belief will partially obey the laws of probability.

For instance, no highly resource constrained mind is going to be able
to fully obey the third assumption of Cox's Theorem,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox's_theorem

thus perfect probabilism is only for unrealistically resource-enabled
minds like Hutter's AIXItl.

> Consider a frequent event (E), such as 'Rain in the Amazon Rain Forest'.
>
> Which statement is most true?
>
> A) E is frequent because it is probable.
> B) E is probable because it is frequent.

E is rationally estimated as probable in the future, because it has
been observed as frequent in the past.

A related point is that single-number probabilities are not
necessarily the best way to describe a system's degree of belief.
Keynes suggested interval probabilities, and in the Novamente AI
system we work with what we now call "indefinite probabilities",
intervals [L,U] with the interpretation

"I estimate that, after N more observations, my probability estimate
of the event E will lie in the interval [L,U] with probability b."

This is a more sophisticated approach than Keynes' interval
probabilities or Walley's imprecise probabilities but with a similar
underlying philosophy.

-- Ben

From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Jan  1 11:21:17 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:21:17 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <op.tlhm19weivvpma@shuttle>
Message-ID: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3FCE@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>

gts wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:00:26 -0500, Jef Allbright 
> <jef at jefallbright.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > gts wrote:
> >
> >> Which statement is most true?
> >>
> >> A) E is frequent because it is probable.
> >> B) E is probable because it is frequent.
> >
> > It would be helpful, highlighted by the example of (A), to 
> clarify the 
> > complementary usage of "probability" and "likelihood".  Once again, 
> > clear terminology is vital...
> 
> The purpose of my question is to help the reader discover on 
> his own which of the two objectivist interpretations of 
> probability he is likely to prefer (while leaving open the 
> question of subjective/epistemic interpretations).
> 
> I could write (A) as "E is frequent because it is has a high 
> propensity to occur" but this would at least partially defeat 
> the purpose of the exercise.
> 
> (But now the cat is out of the bag in any case. So much for 
> the Socratic method. :)
> 
> (A) seems most correct to me, but I wonder if perhaps others 
> here might disagree. Certainly frequency theorists would prefer (B).

I recall that you and I could never agree on the (in)validity of qualia
as a practical statement about "reality".  Do you think this is a
variation on that theme?

Your statement (A) seems to me to be flawed, i.e. it's not a matter of
preference between (A) and (B), since (A) doesn't even make sense.  If
(A) were rephrased as "E is frequent because it is likely", or better
yet "E is more frequent because it is more likely", then there would be
something meaningful to consider, but as it currently expressed it seems
to imply that an objective measurement is "because" of a subjective
assessment.

I have a different problem with (B) due to frequentist probability being
less complete than Bayesian probability.

- Jef 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 12:14:24 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:14:24 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry for double postings
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101141244.03fe57c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

... but pleased to wish you all the very best for 2007 -

Happy New Year!

Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/7eccb20e/attachment.html 

From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Jan  1 12:42:49 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:42:49 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian predictions for 2007?
Message-ID: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3FE3@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>

How about getting predictions from members of the extropy list with
regard to extropic advances expected in 2007?
 
I'll begin:
 
Subject area:  Information technology/Search
 
Prediction: Various companies will offer practical implementations of a
more intelligent generation of search engine incorporating dynamic
collaborative resources to improve both relevance and salience.  For
example, extracting dynamic information from blogs and news feeds to
apply to more traditional search results. The key question for me is how
quickly this will become effective for general searches rather than
search focused on selected topics.
 
- Jef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/14665289/attachment.html 

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Jan  1 13:55:13 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:55:13 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101111837.03b422b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 10:59 AM 1/1/2007 +0000, Russell wrote:

snip

>Most people (myself included) need some sort of transcendent vision to 
>inspire them to work towards a brighter future. Different visions work for 
>different people; the idea that our dead might ultimately be restored is a 
>beautiful one, and will be all the more so if it turns out to be true; let 
>those of us who can't quite believe it acknowledge the unknowability and 
>hold onto something that does work for us.

Cryonics might not work, but it's the best chance we know about to preserve 
information.

In terms of "acting locally" you can't get more local than making 
arrangements for yourself!

How many on this list are signed up?

The rest of you want to make a New Year's resolution?

Keith



From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jan  1 13:52:48 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:52:48 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable?
References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
Message-ID: <01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>

"scerir" <scerir at libero.it>

> I agree that MWI has nothing to do with consciousness
> and 'human' observation

OK.

> It seems difficult to believe that MWI has nothing
> to do with measurements. No measurements no probabilities.

It may be hard to believe but it's every bit as consistent as Copenhagen. In
Copenhagen before a measurement is made the cat is both alive and dead; in
Many Worlds the cat is either alive or dead. True, we will need a
measurement to find out which state the cat is in, but our observation will
not effect the cat.

> My question was: what about the MWI now?
> Can it explain what happens, avoiding
> the role of the consciousness/knowledge
> of the observer?

In your thought experiment in one universe a particle hits a small target
and is absorbed, in another it does not hit the target, so that is when they
split because the universes are no longer identical; one has a particle
still moving in it and one does not. If an observer does not see it hit the
small target he knows he is not living in one of the universes where it did,
if a coconut doesn't hit me on the head I know I'm not living in a universe
where it did. So What? When a conscious observer can figure out which
universe he is living in depends on how far he is from the target, if he is
looking at it, if he is thinking about it, how fast he can think, and
various other irrelevant factors.  Universes split when they become
different, they merge when they become the same, and measurement doesn't
enter into it.

Do the two-slit experiment, but instead of using film to stop the photon
after it pass the slits, let it head out into infinite space. If Many
Worlds is correct the entire universe splits into 2 when the photon hit's
the 2 slits, and never recombines. There is nothing special about you the
observer, you split just like everything else, you know that the photon went
through one and only one slit, but of course you have no way of knowing
which one.

Now let's do the more usual two-split experiment and put the film back in.
The universe splits just as it did before when it passed the two slits, but
when the photon hits the film and it no longer exists in either universe
then the 2 are identical and fuse back together again. Looking back we find
evidence that the photon (or electron) went through both slits and this
causes an interference pattern. Again there is nothing special about an
observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film,
or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important
thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply
that it is destroyed.  Mind has nothing to do with any of this so I don't
need to explain it, or measurement, or record, or observation, or
consciousness. That is a very very big advantage! Yes I have a truly
marvelous proof of all these propositions, but unfortunately the margin
of this post is too narrow to contain it.

John K Clark      jonkc at att.net





From ben at goertzel.org  Mon Jan  1 14:03:34 2007
From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:03:34 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/1/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> Will it ever be possible to bring back people like Sasha? I don't know.
> There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law that would
> permit such a thing even in principle,

According to my understanding of quantum theory, this is not the case.
 Our current understanding of physical law **does** seem to permit
this in principle.

Quantum measurement theory, in the decoherence interpretation which is
the current near-consensus, states that when a quantum system couples
with its environment (thus decohering its quantum state), massive
information about its state is encoded in the environment in subtle
but in-principle decodable ways.

An implication would be that essentially full information about Sasha
Chislenko is contained in the universe, encoded in the
perturbation-patterns of various particles that are now distributed
all over the place.

A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be
required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it,
but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the
decoherence interpretation are correct.

I agree with Samantha however that this is not the best place to focus
our efforts right now.  My vote in this regard is with AGI development
as many of you already know.

-- Ben Goertzel

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 14:04:03 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:04:03 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101160332.04406350@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 03:55 PM 1/1/2007, Keith wrote:

>How many on this list are signed up?

I have been since 1991.


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/24d7704e/attachment.html 

From randall at randallsquared.com  Mon Jan  1 14:41:50 2007
From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:41:50 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? - Randall
In-Reply-To: <000201c72bfd$a9ea66e0$3abc1f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><000201c72914$41b11ec0$8c911f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<9F17BE84-2363-4722-9A08-386DB0FE1F5F@randallsquared.com>
	<000201c72bfd$a9ea66e0$3abc1f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
Message-ID: <0D7EF38D-52E4-44BC-A9A4-5B8F6900E794@randallsquared.com>


On Dec 30, 2006, at 5:31 AM, scerir wrote:

> Randall Randall:
>> Really?  What simple experiments?
>
> (I think I've already posted this here.
> Not sure though. Maybe in another world!)

Heh.  My "Really?" was delayed by a very long time,
such that you'd answered and your answer had spawned
a long thread by the time my post made it to the list.

I'm having some ongoing trouble posting to the list,
marked by getting bounces or delay notices, and so
I'm bcc'ing this to you as well.

> Since the MWI picture of the 'splitting' is based
> on measurements, and since here, at t1, no measurement
> whatsoever occurs (the charged particle does not hit
> the scintillating surface m at time t1; the charged
> particle will hit a face of the box only at time
> t2 > t1) we can say that MWI is not an 'ontological'
> interpretation. [2]
>
> Any solution, or hint, is wellcome.


I'm not deeply familiar with MWI, but I don't think
it requires measurements to have been made.  I thought
it was the case that the universe branches at every
possible quantum decision, with every possible choice
being taken.  No doubt this is a simplistic (or just
wrong) view, but it wouldn't have any trouble with
your experiment, because the decisions about which way
the particle goes was made for the universe you are
in when the particle went that way.  So "waves" are
the result of making measurements which do not precisely
distinguish what universe you're actually in, and
measurements on the particles themselves don't show
any waves.

It will be clear from the above that I'm no physicist,
of course; this is just what I think I understand about
the MWI view.

--
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"If you are trying to produce a commercial product in
  a timely and cost efficient way, it is not good to have
  somebody's PhD research on your critical path." -- Chip Morningstar



From jonkc at att.net  Mon Jan  1 15:33:12 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:33:12 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?.
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
Message-ID: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>

gts wrote:

> Which statement is most true?
> A) E is frequent because it is probable.
> B) E is probable because it is frequent.

If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable. If
Many Worlds is right then something is probable because it is frequent.

But that introduces an interesting matter. I could be dead wrong, believe it
or not I've been wrong before, but it seems to me that if Many World is
right there may be a ten hundred thousand million billion trillion goggle
googolplex (googolplex is one followed by a googol zeroes, goggle is 1
followed by a hundred zeros) to the googolplex power, to the googolplex
power, to the googolplex power, to the googolplex power, number of
universes. But there can't be a INFINITE number of universes.

In MWI everything is possible, but everybody knows some things are more
likely than others; it is possible for a tornado to enter a junkyard and
assemble a fully functional Bowing 747, but it is astronomically unlikely
that you are lucky enough to be living in such a astoundingly rare universe.
The trouble is, funny things happen when you introduce infinity to
statistics and probability. If there are ten hundred thousand million 
billion
trillion universes where a tornado does such an extraordinary thing and a
infinite number where it does not, then the probably you will be living in
such a wonderful universe are zero, not almost zero, but absolutely
precisely exactly ZERO. If you want infinite universes then you need
statistical mathematics that can accommodate infinity, we don't have that
yet.

John K Clark



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  1 16:09:07 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:09:07 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3FCE@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3FCE@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
Message-ID: <op.tlh2phqcivvpma@shuttle>

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:21:17 -0500, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>  
wrote:

> I recall that you and I could never agree on the (in)validity of qualia
> as a practical statement about "reality".  Do you think this is a
> variation on that theme?

Hmm, I doubt the two subjects have much in common, though it's an  
interesting thought!

> ... (A) doesn't even make sense...
> ... as it currently expressed it seems to imply that an objective  
> measurement is "because" of a subjective assessment.

Really? Here is statement (A) again:

"E is frequent because it is probable."

Here is the fully expanded version:

"Rain happens relatively frequently in the Amazon Rain Forest because rain  
there is relatively probable."

(The propensity theorists nod their heads in agreement. The frequency  
theorists say no, that can't be so, because in their view probability is  
defined as relative frequency and so cannot be the cause of it.)

I see no implication in my words that "probable" must be either a  
subjective or an objective assessment, any more than "frequent" must be a  
subjective or objective assessment.

You do realize I hope that neither the propensity theory nor the frequency  
theory define 'probability' (or 'probable') as a subjective assessment. On  
both views we can speak of events being 'probable' or 'frequent' without  
compromising the objectivist nature of the theories. We need only  
stipulate some minimum objective relative frequency to define 'frequent'  
and some minimum objective propensity to define 'probable'. This is  
implied but not explicit in my question.

I think you want to discuss and defend subjective Bayesianism, which is  
fine, but a direct lead-in to that debate was not my desire or intention.

As I tried to explain in my last message, the purpose of my simple  
question, (written in the common parlance in which 'likely' and 'probable'  
are synonyms!!), is to help the reader discover on his own a preference  
for one or another *objectivist* interpretation, while leaving open the  
question of subjectivism for some future exchange of messages.

-gts




From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 16:40:46 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:40:46 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Douglas Engelhart
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101183957.030760e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Does anyone have the email address of Douglas Engelhart?

If so, please email to me privately.

Many thanks,
Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/dcb2d116/attachment.html 

From spike66 at comcast.net  Mon Jan  1 16:48:02 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:48:02 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101111837.03b422b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <200701020053.l020rMAj028338@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
...
> 
> In terms of "acting locally" you can't get more local than making
> arrangements for yourself!
> 
> How many on this list are signed up?
> 
> The rest of you want to make a New Year's resolution?
> 
> Keith


Hey Keith, suppose we do want to sign up.  Can you or others here offer a
top level view of the choices we have, the approximate costs, how much of
that we need now and how much we need later, etc.  Is Alcor still the
favored outfit?  Where are they located now?

spike




 



From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Jan  1 17:42:46 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:42:46 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <op.tlh2phqcivvpma@shuttle>
Message-ID: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D401E@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>

gts wrote:
> As I tried to explain in my last message, the purpose of my 
> simple question, (written in the common parlance in which 
> 'likely' and 'probable'  
> are synonyms!!), is to help the reader discover on his own a 
> preference for one or another *objectivist* interpretation, 
> while leaving open the question of subjectivism for some 
> future exchange of messages.

Yes, I would assert that in a very deep sense all statements of
probability entail a subjective viewpoint and that *ideally* the
assessed probability will match the actual likelihood.  I'll stand back,
but unfortunately not far enough back to have an objective game of dice
with God.  ;-)

- Jef


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  1 17:55:07 2007
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070102015508.13477.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Think globally, act locally" - I wish I were that
> good at coining phrases!
> It would be nice if we did have an equally snappy
> temporal version - any
> ideas anyone?

How about: Plan for the future, live in the moment.
 
> Happy 2007!

You too. :)


Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"Aagghh! Who knew that bio-engineered food would lead to smart puke."
-Willy the school janitor from the Simpsons.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Jan  1 19:07:00 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:07:00 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?.
In-Reply-To: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
	<01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <62c14240701011907i3744fc72wc2f55231a14e894a@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/1/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
>
> gts wrote:
>
> > Which statement is most true?
> > A) E is frequent because it is probable.
> > B) E is probable because it is frequent.
>
> If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable.
> If
> Many Worlds is right then something is probable because it is frequent.
>
> trillion universes where a tornado does such an extraordinary thing and a
> infinite number where it does not, then the probably you will be living in
> such a wonderful universe are zero, not almost zero, but absolutely
> precisely exactly ZERO. If you want infinite universes then you need
> statistical mathematics that can accommodate infinity, we don't have that
> yet.
>


It's not called Infinite Worlds, just "Many" Worlds.   I think 'many' is a
fairly subjective term.

Is it possible that there are an infinite number of possibilities, but the
workspace/array to hold the number of eigenstates being tested is limited to
your *really big* number?

Perhaps there is a yet unknown bound for the number of possible states
relative to the total energy in the system being measured.  Intuitively,
there seem to be moments where there is some optimization shortcuts in the
computation of the universe when nobody is even looking  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/a20d3a12/attachment.html 

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Jan  1 20:15:43 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:15:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <200701020053.l020rMAj028338@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101111837.03b422b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101204657.03b62cc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 04:48 PM 1/1/2007 -0800, spike wrote:

>Hey Keith, suppose we do want to sign up.  Can you or others here offer a
>top level view of the choices we have, the approximate costs, how much of
>that we need now and how much we need later, etc.

Check out www.alcor.org  If that doesn't answer all your questions, let me 
know.

>Is Alcor still the favored outfit?

Yes if you have the money.  They are more expensive.

>Where are they located now?

Arizona


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  1 20:17:21 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:17:21 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <op.tlf7sdjtivvpma@shuttle>
	<638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.tlid67o1ivvpma@shuttle>

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:54:42 -0500, Ben Goertzel <ben at goertzel.org> wrote:

> The most consistent interpretational approach, I believe, is a fusion
> of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory as enabled by Cox's
> Theorem.

Thanks. Interesting! I know nothing of Cox's theorem, and so I'll need to
study it before I can comment.

In the meantime I should correct something I wrote earlier about the
logical theory:

I wrote, "[the logical theory] will be seen as either epistemic or
objective depending on one's conviction concerning the alleged objective
neo-platonic reality of logic."

I meant something more like: "[the logical theory] can be seen either as
subjective or objective depending on one's conviction concerning the
alleged objective neo-platonic reality of logic, but in either case it can
be considered epistemic."

-gts


From pj at pj-manney.com  Mon Jan  1 21:33:43 2007
From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:33:43 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Vintage Cartoons for your holiday
Message-ID: <18309945.1859771167716023074.JavaMail.servlet@perfora>

>What's Opera Doc? (1957)
>http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=cfaf9b53f177c714363e3ae15d68903c.79e4167a
>bfb722243c59a5ad326f8edf
>
>One Froggy Evening (1956)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saU-Bl0feSs

Excellent list, Amara!  I have to say that "One Froggy Evening" is perhaps the most perfect piece of visual storytelling ever made.  It is funny for all ages, concise, elegant, has no dialogue (except for the frog's singing) and therefore is accessible to all.  It's also profound.  It relates a great truth about human behavior that resonates far into the future (as depicted at the end by a future construction worker in a glass bubble-helmet) -- wishful thinking and greed destroys us, yet it makes the world go round.  Time may pass and technology may change, but our self-destructive human foibles are still with us.  Ain't it the truth.

"What's Opera Doc?" is my other favorite cartoon of all time -- a perfect marriage of high culture and low humor.  And Bugs Bunny in drag (and in this one, Valkyrie drag at that) is one of the few cultural icons we can proudly pass down to our descendents.

If you've never seen these, you are missing out on two major pieces of animation history.  And if you've seen better motion picture storytelling, I'd like to know where.

The incomparable Chuck Jones wrote and directed both.  What a genius.
 He's on my personal short list of those I'd like to bring back from the dead.  F@#%ing genius.  <sigh>

Wishing you all a wonderful 2007,
PJ

From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  1 09:09:30 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:09:30 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007
In-Reply-To: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
References: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 04:04 AM 1/1/2007, Anders Sandberg wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm
>
>French marchers say 'non' to 2007
>
>Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a
>light-hearted march against it.
>
>Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the
>western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is
>better!"
>
>The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race"
>and declare a moratorium on the future.
"The name Fonacon comes from the group's title - Front d'opposition ? la 
nouvelle ann?e and Comit? d'Organistion National (acronym "con", which 
means daft). The organisers, who prefer to remain anonymous, say it is 
illogical that people should celebrate the passing of time. The ending of a 
year is another step towards the grave and therefore a tragedy, not a cause 
for joy.

"The idea, which began in the village of Chauch?, south of Nantes last 
year, was launched nationally at a spoof 'terrorist' press conference. The 
members of the anti-New Year front, including several otherwise 
conventional local businessmen and women, dressed up in hoods and masks."

But it is not just the future I am learning.  It is to also about stopping 
aging and death!  The irony is that while this may seem like a 
anti-future(ist) trend, it may very well be transhumanist in part.  Please 
read on:
"'It is about time that the passage of time ended,' said one of the hooded 
organisers. 'We are fed up with getting older. Why should we follow the 
fashion? The planet is getting older and warmer. Not us. Stop this mad race 
towards death.'"

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070101/ff65c5e1/attachment.html 

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Jan  2 09:34:20 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:34:20 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com
 >
References: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070102113411.041b5450@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

Forgot to add url http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2060006.ece


At 11:09 AM 1/1/2007, you wrote:
>At 04:04 AM 1/1/2007, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm
>>
>>French marchers say 'non' to 2007
>>
>>Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a
>>light-hearted march against it.
>>
>>Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the
>>western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is
>>better!"
>>
>>The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race"
>>and declare a moratorium on the future.
>"The name Fonacon comes from the group's title - Front d'opposition ? la 
>nouvelle ann?e and Comit? d'Organistion National (acronym "con", which 
>means daft). The organisers, who prefer to remain anonymous, say it is 
>illogical that people should celebrate the passing of time. The ending of 
>a year is another step towards the grave and therefore a tragedy, not a 
>cause for joy.
>"The idea, which began in the village of Chauch?, south of Nantes last 
>year, was launched nationally at a spoof 'terrorist' press conference. The 
>members of the anti-New Year front, including several otherwise 
>conventional local businessmen and women, dressed up in hoods and masks."
>
>But it is not just the future I am learning.  It is to also about stopping 
>aging and death!  The irony is that while this may seem like a 
>anti-future(ist) trend, it may very well be transhumanist in part.  Please 
>read on:
>"'It is about time that the passage of time ended,' said one of the hooded 
>organisers. 'We are fed up with getting older. Why should we follow the 
>fashion? The planet is getting older and warmer. Not us. Stop this mad 
>race towards death.'"
>
>Natasha
>
><http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
>Design Media Artist - Futurist
>PhD Candidate, 
><http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
>Collegium
>Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
><http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
>Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
>Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
>
>If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
>then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
>circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
>perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Design Media Artist - Futurist
PhD Candidate, 
<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary 
Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070102/2525394e/attachment.html 

From scerir at libero.it  Tue Jan  2 12:43:54 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:43:54 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable?
References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com><003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex>

>> It seems difficult to believe that MWI has nothing
>> to do with measurements.

John writes:
> It may be hard to believe but it's every bit
> as consistent as Copenhagen. In Copenhagen before
> a measurement is made the cat is both alive and dead;
> in Many Worlds the cat is either alive or dead.
> True, we will need a measurement to find out
> which state the cat is in, but our observation
> will not effect the cat. [...]

This is correct.

But I would say that in Copenhagen a quantum state
is more 'available information' (hence the collapse)
than physical entity. On the contrary, in MWI it is
a physical entity. Of course, there are 'nuances'
both in the Copenhagen and in the MWI.

>From the 'Everett faq' I get (if I understand
what I read) that measurement causes
the 'split' [1].

More carefully Bryce deWitt, in his last paper,
writes (following Everett and Wheeler) that
the total state vector |Psi> takes the form
|Psi> = Sum_s  c_s  |s>  |Phi(s)>
which means that, relative to each system state
|s>, the apparatus state, represented by the
vector |Phi>, as a result of a _coupling_ 
between the state and the apparatus, goes into 
the corresponding state |Phi(s)>. All the possible 
outcomes of the measurement are contained 
in the superposition above, weighted by 
coefficients c_s determined by the system state 
vector.

So, according to deWitt, it is more a 
_coupling_ than a measurement.

Having in mind the infamous example we can write
|Psi> = c_1 |p. hits scintill.1 at t1>|flash at t1>
        c_2 |p. hits scintill.2 at t2>|flash at t2>.

I have no problem with that. But if in MWI
"the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics
is sufficient as it stands. No metaphysics needs
to be added to it." (deWitt) and "the mathematical
formalism of the quantum theory is capable of
yielding its own interpretation." (deWitt) it seems
to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) does not 
tell us what happens between times t1 and t2 (in the 
usual laboratory frame, but we can choose a different
reference frame) of the example above.

This is not the only problem I have with the MWI.
Another problem I have is the one-slit diffraction 
(different from the two-slit interference)
since the 'splitting' must have a rather complex dynamics.
Another problem is with the diffraction in time
(one-slit moving very fast, up and down, so that
we get interference on the screen because we cannot
know if the photon entered the slit when it was up 
or when it was down).
 
Regards,
s.

[1]
"The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard
linear deterministic wave equations at all times.
The observer plays no special role in the theory and,
consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction.
For non-relativistic systems the Schrodinger wave equation
is a good approximation to reality.
The rest of the theory is just working out consequences
of the above assumptions. Measurements and observations
by a subject on an object are modelled by applying
the wave equation to the joint subject-object system.
Some consequences are:
1) That each measurement causes a decomposition or
decoherence of the universal wavefunction into
non-interacting and mostly non-interfering branches,
histories or worlds. The histories form a branching
tree which encompasses all the possible outcomes
of each interaction. Every historical what-if
compatible with the initial conditions and physical
law is realised.
2) That the conventional statistical Born interpretation
of the amplitudes in quantum theory is derived
from within the theory rather than having to be
assumed as an additional axiom."




From jonkc at att.net  Tue Jan  2 14:32:32 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:32:32 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable?
References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com><003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex><01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
Message-ID: <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer>

"scerir" <scerir at libero.it>

> in Copenhagen a quantum state is more 'available information' (hence the
> collapse) than physical entity. On the contrary, in MWI it is a physical
> entity.

If there are 2 competing theories and one deals more with physical entities
than the other I would say it is the superior theory; the name of the
science after all is "physics".  Abstraction for abstraction's sake just
does not thrill me.

> From the 'Everett faq' I get (if I understand what I read) that
> measurement causes the 'split'

Well, from the faq you included in your post I read "The wavefunction obeys
the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all
times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently,
there is no collapse of the wavefunction." That sure doesn't sound to me
like that supports your position.

To be fair it also says "each measurement causes a decomposition or
decoherence of the universal wavefunction into non-interacting and mostly
non-interfering branches, histories or worlds." How do I explain that?
As I said before when you make a measurement the important thing is
not that you now have a record of some sort, the important thing is that
you changed something. You can replace that super sophisticated,
hyper expensive, extraordinarily wonderful, photographic film with a
wall made of donkey dung, and it will make no difference, both will
stop a photon and cause a universe to split.

> So, according to deWitt, it is more a _coupling_ than a measurement.

Exactly. A photon's quantum properties are coupled to a wall of donkey dung
in one universe and not coupled to a wall of donkey dung in another; so the
universes split.

> it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) does not tell us what
> happens between times t1 and t2

Please name the observation you have recorded during that interval that
Copenhagen can explain but Many Worlds cannot.

> Another problem I have is the one-slit diffraction
(different from the two-slit interference)

Things are indeed a bit more complex when dealing with diffraction rather
that interference, and if Copenhagen can explain what is going on more
clearly than Many Worlds then I have lost the argument. But can it? One
theory must explain the complex dynamics between one universe and another;
the other theory must explain the complex dynamics between what is real and
what is not. I'm not a gambler and I could be wrong, but I know where I'd
put my money.

Best regards. And I want you to know I'm really enjoying this debate;
regardless if I end up winning or losing I want you to know I think you are
a fine fellow.

John K Clark





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan  2 14:57:43 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (thespike at satx.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:57:43 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable?
In-Reply-To: <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer>
References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <d5d6b0661f284.1f284d5d6b066@texas.rr.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: John K Clark <jonkc at att.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:46 pm
> "scerir" <scerir at libero.it>

> > it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) does not 
> > tell us what happens between times t1 and t2

> Please name the observation you have recorded during that interval 
> thatCopenhagen can explain but Many Worlds cannot.

Well, he can't, because he just lumped them together as two 
interpretations unable to do so.

Damien Broderick

From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  2 15:39:03 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:39:03 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DFAEFB2B-5922-4CE8-8B93-42B753275AE5@mac.com>


On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007!
> Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not
> doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to
> imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is
> indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But
> "there are more things in heaven and earth...".
> Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the
> ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same
> thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not
> create logical paradoxes.

How exactly would you retrieve this rather dense amount of information  
from the past without going back to when it was still coherently  
available?

> And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical
> paradoxes in the MWI.

This may not help you.  By MWI as I understand it your time travel  
would branch the universe or some subset thereof so you could not  
bring information back to the same branch you started from.


> If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or
> later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha,
> I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years.

Even granting that we do not yet know the truly fundamental laws of  
physics it is not certain that engineers will find a way to do all  
things that are possible to the degree of actually making doing them  
practical or the results of doing them sufficiently good.  Not all  
things that can be done are worth the expense needed to do them or are  
seen as good or advantageous to do.   But that is another subject in  
this area.
>

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  2 15:48:25 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:48:25 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <op.tlhm19weivvpma@shuttle>
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
	<op.tlhm19weivvpma@shuttle>
Message-ID: <C57B42D2-9B4B-4B7A-952D-D6B42053734F@mac.com>


On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:31 AM, gts wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:00:26 -0500, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> gts wrote:
>>
>>> Which statement is most true?
>>>
>>> A) E is frequent because it is probable.
>>> B) E is probable because it is frequent.
>>

Neither.  An event that can by its nature only occur once or a very  
rarely in a very large period of time may still be quite probable that  
it will occur.   For instance, it is extremely probable that our sun  
will some day exhaust its primary fuel and become a white dwarf.

- samantha


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  2 15:21:52 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:21:52 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <op.tlf7sdjtivvpma@shuttle>
	<638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.tlju6qlzivvpma@shuttle>

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:54:42 -0500, Ben Goertzel <ben at goertzel.org> wrote:

> The most consistent interpretational approach, I believe, is a fusion
> of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory as enabled by Cox's
> Theorem.

As promised I looked into this subject of Cox's Theorem. Thanks again for  
mentioning it.

As I understand now, and I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong, the  
"fusion of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory" to which you refer is  
none other than what is more commonly known both as Objective Bayesianism  
and Logical Bayesianism (as distinct from Subjective Bayesianism). Yes?

If so then this is an interpretation about which I had already done some  
reading [1]. I had rejected it on the grounds that it depends on The  
Principle of Indifference, which leads to many unsolved and possibly  
unsolvable paradoxes. Was I wrong?

Here is what I mean by the Principle of Indifference leading to unsolved  
paradoxes:

First a definition of The Principle of Indifference:

"When there is no evidence favoring one possibility over another, the  
possibilities have the same probability."

For example if you have no knowledge about a coin's fairness or lack of  
fairness then it makes sense (seemingly) to assign equal probabilities to  
heads and to tails. You don't know if it's fair or not, and assuming it's  
not fair then you still don't know if it favors heads or if it favors  
tails. So we apply the principle of indifference and assign 50%  
probability to heads and 50% probability to tails. Logical, yes? So it  
would seem.

However this kind of thinking leads to paradoxes like the following  
(adapted from something I read on some forgotten web page)...

A factory produces cubes with side-length between 0 and 1 foot; what is  
the probability that a randomly chosen cube has side-length between 0 and  
1/2 a foot?

The tempting answer is 1/2, as we imagine a process of production that is  
uniformly distributed over side-length.

But the question could have been given an equivalent restatement:

A factory produces cubes with face-area between 0 and 1 square-feet; what  
is the probability that a randomly chosen cube has face-area between 0 and  
1/4 square-feet?

Now the tempting answer is 1/4, as we imagine a process of production that  
is uniformly distributed over face-area.

The problem could have been restated equivalently again:

A factory produces cubes with volume between 0 and 1 cubic feet; what is  
the probability that a randomly chosen cube has volume between 0 and 1/8  
cubic-feet? Now the tempting answer is 1/8, as we imagine a process of  
production that is uniformly distributed over volume.

And so on for all of the infinitely many equivalent reformulations of the  
problem (in terms of the fourth, fifth, ? power of the length, and indeed  
in terms of every non-zero real-valued exponent of the length).

What, then, is the probability of the event in question???

---

So, although the principle of indifference seems "logical", I think it  
fails on closer inspection.

(I understand Jaynes tried with some apparent success to solve a related  
paradox, but from what I understand his solution has no universal  
application.)

-gts

1. Gillies, D. (2000). Philosophical Theories of Probability. New York,  
NY: Routledge.





From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  2 15:53:32 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:53:32 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>


On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

> An implication would be that essentially full information about Sasha
> Chislenko is contained in the universe, encoded in the
> perturbation-patterns of various particles that are now distributed
> all over the place.
>
> A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be
> required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it,
> but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the
> decoherence interpretation are correct.
>

Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources  
available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to  
sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha  
relevant information.

- samantha


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Jan  2 16:06:59 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:06:59 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Music!  How a tune sticks in your head
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070102113411.041b5450@pop-server.austin.rr.com
 >
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com >
	<3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070102185925.03b77fc0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

How a tune sticks in your head

A rock producer turned McGill University professor is delving deep into the 
workings of the mind to see how a pop song uses emotions to embed itself in 
your memory, finds Clive Thompson

http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/166594

This article is full of evolution/EP thinking.  Such as this quip.  :-)

"I actually became a producer because I saw the producers getting all the 
babes," he said. "They were stealing them from the guitarists."

and

Not all of Levitin's idea have been easily accepted. He argues, for 
example, that music is an evolutionary adaptation: something that men 
developed as a way to demonstrate reproductive fitness. (Before you laugh, 
consider the sex lives of today's male rock stars.)

I think you will enjoy it.

Keith Henson


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  2 18:37:02 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:37:02 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?
In-Reply-To: <C57B42D2-9B4B-4B7A-952D-D6B42053734F@mac.com>
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
	<op.tlhm19weivvpma@shuttle>
	<C57B42D2-9B4B-4B7A-952D-D6B42053734F@mac.com>
Message-ID: <op.tlj370iyivvpma@shuttle>

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:48:25 -0500, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
wrote:

>>>> Which statement is most true?
>>>>
>>>> A) E is frequent because it is probable.
>>>> B) E is probable because it is frequent.
>>>
>
> Neither.  An event that can by its nature only occur once or a very  
> rarely in a very large period of time may still be quite probable that  
> it will occur.   For instance, it is extremely probable that our sun  
> will some day exhaust its primary fuel and become a white dwarf.

You missed that E was defined previously as a 'frequent event', for
example 'Rain in the Amazon Rain Forest'.

However your point is still relevant. My interests in both the objective
propensity theory and the subjective bayesianist theory stem from what I
think is a failure of the more commonly held frequency theory to give an
account of the probability of singular events.

-gts





From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Jan  2 19:16:19 2007
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:16:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] nanoTX'07
In-Reply-To: <d5d6b0661f284.1f284d5d6b066@texas.rr.com>
References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com>
	<003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer>
	<d5d6b0661f284.1f284d5d6b066@texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <38558.72.236.103.90.1167794179.squirrel@main.nc.us>



I just received an email from a distant family member.... who is working with this:

http://www.nanotx.biz/

Figured it might be of interest to some here. :)

Regards,
MB


From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Tue Jan  2 20:37:14 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:37:14 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200701030437.l034bVju006481@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



Folks,

I've been following this thread very closely, as it is a favorite topic of
mine.  I've been surprised that I haven't seen this topic covered more in
groups like this.  You guys all know much more about this kind of stuff than
I do, and I really hunger for and appreciate all this new information!

It looks like there is quite a large set of theories starting to form about
what will and will not be possible - and the rational as to why.  But there
is clearly a lot of very "strong" POV on this topic that is hard to
quantitatively measure right?

Giulio, I read your article on Engineering Transcendance and agree with most
everything you say.  In your article you talk about "strong" thinking that
might inspire others that are more traditionally religious that might need
something more than what we traditional transhumanists seem to need.  I am
very happy to hear someone finally say something like this and have always
believed that this is very important, and that there are a lot of people
that need "saving", but there hasn't been what they require to get that
saving.

You mentioned writing a book on this topic.  I think that would be great,
but I also think there is something else that would help even more.

Have you followed the threads to this group about the canonizer.com project
I have been working for the past year?  It is intended to be a wiki that
handles POV information.  There is a limited prototype running on
test.canonizer.com, but don't expect much since this is the development
version being worked on and will often be down or not completely functioning
as we continue development.

If you wrote a book on the topic of the possibility of resurrection, it
would simply be yet another single persons POV on this very controversial
issue.  At best you might be able to include something like a "sympathetic"
expression of points of view that are different than your own.  Wouldn't it
be much more powerful and accepted by everyone if there were some kind of
collaboratively developed "topic" about this were all points of view could
be adequately expressed, developed, and quantitatively tallied?

Here is one possible POV structure layout we could start with on such a
topic in the Canonizer:


Topic name: Will there be any resurrection?
	1. Yes
		a. Traditional Religious resurrection by God.

		b. Technological Resurrection.
			i. Only if cryonically preserved.
			ii. It is likely some way or another if we never
give up.
			
	2. No


Each of these lines would be the "one line description" of various POV
statements on this controversial issue.  These lines could change in any
way, and only represent one of many possible general structures.  Of course
there could be infinite amount of substructure representing the many obvious
variations to these particular "camps" and so on.

Each such statement would be an wiki developed encyclopedic summary of the
beliefs of the people in a particular POV "camp" on this topic.  It would
all be developed collaboratively, and as new people joined various camps,
they could bring new information, evidence, reasoning and so on - so that
the state of the art of all POV on this topic could be represented.  If
people's POV was already represented by an existing "camp" they could join
that camp, or a more precise sub camp, and help that POV along in its
development.  In this way we could see precisely who believed in which POV
and how all of our beliefs grow and progress.

Eventually I hope to have a "canonization" process which will allow people
to sort and filter this kind of structure so people can have a tool to help
them select the kind of people they most respect and trust, and see which
POV is most valid and currently most accepted by the people they choose to
trust the most.

You talk about a religion.  But of course for any religion, there must also
be recognized "doctrine", and for some there must even be very strong
"dogma".  I am proposing that such a POV Wiki, could be the way that any
such religion produce and determine what its doctrine and/or dogma is.

Most of us might accept that the most "accepted" camp is the very strong and
hopeful "dogma" that is currently guiding us in life.  And most of us could
also accept that, in a weak and humble way, we might discover that there is
a better way to what it is we really hope for and so on.

So, does anyone else think such a POV wiki would help with the development
and expression of these kinds of beliefs like I do and help us push forward
a much broader transhumanist movement?  I'd sure like to have a more formal
way to add my "amen" in agreement to what many of you are saying about what
might be possible.

Brent Allsop



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:54 PM
To: ben at goertzel.org; ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!


On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

> An implication would be that essentially full information about Sasha
> Chislenko is contained in the universe, encoded in the
> perturbation-patterns of various particles that are now distributed
> all over the place.
>
> A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be
> required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it,
> but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the
> decoherence interpretation are correct.
>

Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources  
available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to  
sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha  
relevant information.

- samantha

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
2:50 PM
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007
2:50 PM
 


From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Jan  2 21:56:09 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 06:56:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <DFAEFB2B-5922-4CE8-8B93-42B753275AE5@mac.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<DFAEFB2B-5922-4CE8-8B93-42B753275AE5@mac.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520701022156p351ee1fg1da5ecb7d04afac2@mail.gmail.com>

Samantha, if I could answer the first question I would start Resurrection Inc.!
Of course you mean in principle, and not in detail. I do not have, of
course, the foggiest idea. A fictional technique that might work if
its assumptions are correct has been described by Sir A. Clarke and
Stephen Baxter in "The Light of Other Days" (links in
http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/) and
is a way to retrieve very high resolution information from the past
without time travel.

Ben's technique based on everything being entangled with almost
everything else might also work, when we have the necessary tech.

As you say, the MWI avoids logical paradoxes by "permitting" only time
travel to "parallel" branches of the multiverse. But since these can
be arbitrarily close to ours (as far as the popular terminology based
on parallel universes makes sense, which I doubt), the copy could be
close enough to the original to be acceptable as a copy in the
identity sense.

The motivation argument. Suppose we had this technology now. We would
certainly use it to resurrect, say, Albert Einstein. But then *he*
would do his best to resurrect his family and friends. And then *they*
would do their best...
G.


On 1/3/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>
> > Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007!
> > Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not
> > doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to
> > imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is
> > indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But
> > "there are more things in heaven and earth...".
> > Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the
> > ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same
> > thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not
> > create logical paradoxes.
>
> How exactly would you retrieve this rather dense amount of information
> from the past without going back to when it was still coherently
> available?
>
> > And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical
> > paradoxes in the MWI.
>
> This may not help you.  By MWI as I understand it your time travel
> would branch the universe or some subset thereof so you could not
> bring information back to the same branch you started from.
>
>
> > If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or
> > later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha,
> > I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years.
>
> Even granting that we do not yet know the truly fundamental laws of
> physics it is not certain that engineers will find a way to do all
> things that are possible to the degree of actually making doing them
> practical or the results of doing them sufficiently good.  Not all
> things that can be done are worth the expense needed to do them or are
> seen as good or advantageous to do.   But that is another subject in
> this area.
> >
>
> - samantha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Jan  2 23:47:20 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:47:20 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org>

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> > A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be
> > required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it,
> > but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the
> > decoherence interpretation are correct.
> >
> 
> Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources  
> available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to  
> sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha  
> relevant information.

Physical systems can and do erase information. Whether such locally
lost information is still contained in the universe is moot if you
can't read it -- you certainly can't catch Sasha's light cone after
the fact. "Physics of Immortality" gives a very special case where
this would be possible at the end of time and space, but then,
"Physics of Immortality" has been falsified.

Your best chances to survive would seem 1) not dying 2) cryonics
in that order. Unfortunately, none of these are an option for Sasha.
His information is lost forever.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070103/efd2894a/attachment.bin 

From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jan  3 00:05:15 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:05:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>
	<20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com>

Eugen, I would say that *the particular mechanism" proposed by Tipler
and based on a future big crunch has been falsified *on the basis of
the currently available cosmological evidence*. Not the core concept
itself.
I can relate to Kurzweil's "if the universe is open or closed will be
for us to decide when the time is right".
I am the first to admit that this is idle speculation in absence of
any hard fact or plausible theory, but sometimes also idle
speculations can advance science in the sense of steering one's
toughts on a certain path. Provided, of course, that one does not take
speculations as facts.
So I prefer remaining agnostic on this point and think "well, maybe".
G.

On 1/3/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> > > A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be
> > > required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it,
> > > but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the
> > > decoherence interpretation are correct.
> > >
> >
> > Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources
> > available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to
> > sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha
> > relevant information.
>
> Physical systems can and do erase information. Whether such locally
> lost information is still contained in the universe is moot if you
> can't read it -- you certainly can't catch Sasha's light cone after
> the fact. "Physics of Immortality" gives a very special case where
> this would be possible at the end of time and space, but then,
> "Physics of Immortality" has been falsified.
>
> Your best chances to survive would seem 1) not dying 2) cryonics
> in that order. Unfortunately, none of these are an option for Sasha.
> His information is lost forever.
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jan  3 00:50:11 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:50:11 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>
	<20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org>
	<470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070103085011.GX6974@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:05:15AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Eugen, I would say that *the particular mechanism" proposed by Tipler
> and based on a future big crunch has been falsified *on the basis of
> the currently available cosmological evidence*. Not the core concept

Tipler's was a tenuous construction already, since postulating an
ethics forecast of powers. There his eagerness to believe in a Deity
was especially apparent, and ruined the entire book by way of 
fact confabulation. But if you take away his predictions about 
retrocausality of the Omega boundary condition and nothing remains 
of the book's residual points. And that's a good thing, because
he built it that way.

(Unless, of course, you have an alternative theory of similiar predictive
power and falsifyability as Tipler's). 

> itself.
> I can relate to Kurzweil's "if the universe is open or closed will be
> for us to decide when the time is right".

I can't. Kurzweil is giving futurists a bad name in scientific circles.
His numbers are so doctored, they're not even wrong.

From what we currently know, our style is severely cramped by that
dark energy thing, which will make most of the even visible universe inaccessible
by way of runaway inflation. Which, of course, is our current knowledge.
Next week, or next decade I'll be quite thrilled to switch to a different
tune. But that time is not now. Anyone who's willing to firmly
claim otherwise is operating outside of the realm of science.

> I am the first to admit that this is idle speculation in absence of
> any hard fact or plausible theory, but sometimes also idle
> speculations can advance science in the sense of steering one's
> toughts on a certain path. Provided, of course, that one does not take
> speculations as facts.
> So I prefer remaining agnostic on this point and think "well, maybe".

I don't disagree with this at all. But I'm not willing to listen to
the "you might be immortal already, so you don't have to do anything,
halleluja" crowd, which don't really need any encouragement.

Which is why Sasha is dead, until proven otherwise. Which is why
people should look into life extension first, and cryonics second.
These are hard choices which are inconvenient (CR, lifestyle changes) 
and cost money (cryonics). Here Kurzweil at least walks the walk,
and not just talks the talk.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070103/cb557c27/attachment.bin 

From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jan  3 01:28:09 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:28:09 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] =?windows-1252?q?My_reply_to_WJ_Smith=92s_=93Give_?=
	=?windows-1252?q?Me_That_New_Transhumanist_Religion=94?=
Message-ID: <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com>

I had the honor to be quoted by Wesley J. Smith in a blog post titled "Give
Me That New Transhumanist
Religion<http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/01/give-me-that-new-transhumanist.html>",
where he comments my "Considerations on the development of the transhumanist
movement <http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20061231/>".  This is
only fair, as I quoted him. However, he tries using my post in support of
his view of transhumanism as "a branch of scientism, that is, a quasi
religion that seeks to use science in ways for which the great method is not
meant". So I left the comment below on his blog.

Dear Wesley,

I wish to thank you for quoting me, but also wish to reply to your comments
which may give, I fear, a distorted view of what I try to say.

I have the highest respect for religion as search for meaning and wish to
live a "good" life.

At the same time, and based not only on my scientific training but also on
my common sense, I am just unable to *believe* in any religion.

I think, as you quote, that the succes of religions is due to the fact that
they offer an answer to the nightmare of death.

For previous generations, death was just something you cannot escape, so it
is not surprising that so many persons have accepted supernatural answers in
absence of scientific ones.

But today we are beginning to see how science and technology may be able,
someday and perhaps soon, to defeat death. I prefer this practical
engineering approach to blind belief in something that cannot be proven.

Of course, for most people, the scientific possibility of engineering
immortality for future generation is not enough. I am one of these people.
Many of my loved ones are dead and I wish to think that, perhaps, I will see
them again.

This is just human. But I cannot blind my eyes to the fact that, according
to the scientific worldview to which I subscribe, they are just gone.

Gone forever? Perhaps. And perhaps future science and technology may find a
way to bring them back. I do not *believe* this: I do not believe in
anything that I cannot prove. But I allow myself to contemplate this
possibility because it is not, in my opinion, incompatible with the
scientific worldview.

This is what I mean by offering hope to those who, like me, are unable to
find hope in religion.

It is, I think, unfair to quote "[The] Raelian message is very similar to
the transhumanist one" without the rest of my sentence: "with an extra layer
of UFO nonsense". Indeed, I think the Raelian message has the same weakness
of religion: it requires blind faith in things that cannot be proven.

I prefer, on the contrary, to believe in ourselves and in our capability to
improve our own condition. On the basis of our current understanding of
reality, I am confident that someday we will achieve immortality through
engineering. And later, perhaps, we will be able to do things even more
amazing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070103/fd6fe239/attachment-0001.html 

From pgptag at gmail.com  Wed Jan  3 01:31:41 2007
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:31:41 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <20070103085011.GX6974@leitl.org>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com>
	<638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com>
	<D095AE94-D2A4-4BA2-BD40-3A8018911797@mac.com>
	<20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org>
	<470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070103085011.GX6974@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <470a3c520701030131yfc1d64r2d6aaafa18242434@mail.gmail.com>

I'm also not willing to listen to the "you might be immortal already,
so you don't have to do anything, halleluja" crowd. That is why I am
signed up with the Cryonics Institute.
Even if I firmly believed that I might be immortal already, I would
not want to miss the fun of the next few centuries.
G.

On 1/3/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> > I am the first to admit that this is idle speculation in absence of
> > any hard fact or plausible theory, but sometimes also idle
> > speculations can advance science in the sense of steering one's
> > toughts on a certain path. Provided, of course, that one does not take
> > speculations as facts.
> > So I prefer remaining agnostic on this point and think "well, maybe".
>
> I don't disagree with this at all. But I'm not willing to listen to
> the "you might be immortal already, so you don't have to do anything,
> halleluja" crowd, which don't really need any encouragement.
>
> Which is why Sasha is dead, until proven otherwise. Which is why
> people should look into life extension first, and cryonics second.
> These are hard choices which are inconvenient (CR, lifestyle changes)
> and cost money (cryonics). Here Kurzweil at least walks the walk,
> and not just talks the talk.
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org

From lucioc at gmail.com  Wed Jan  3 04:15:46 2007
From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:15:46 -0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701022156p351ee1fg1da5ecb7d04afac2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deaa866a0612272137u4cd29d66odd4ce9cbf43b5aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<FE7CC9F7-1AD8-4A19-B767-A843D51BCBF0@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com>
	<DFAEFB2B-5922-4CE8-8B93-42B753275AE5@mac.com>
	<470a3c520701022156p351ee1fg1da5ecb7d04afac2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b024ff40701030415m408f5ffcwc84c19860bc2631@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/3/07, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <pgptag at gmail.com> wrote:
> Samantha, if I could answer the first question I would start Resurrection Inc.!
> Of course you mean in principle, and not in detail. I do not have, of
> course, the foggiest idea. A fictional technique that might work if
> its assumptions are correct has been described by Sir A. Clarke and
> Stephen Baxter in "The Light of Other Days" (links in
> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/) and
> is a way to retrieve very high resolution information from the past
> without time travel.
(...)

The same idea appears in another science fiction story that I read
many years ago were the crew of a Superluminal ship studies the
evolution of a supernova "backwards" simply travelling to regions of
space were the image of the star as it was before exploding was still
visible.

Of course, as far as I understand Relativity, Superluminal travel
apparently *has to* imply the possibility of travelling back in time.
(And often other oddities like violations of the Conservation Laws.)
And that apparently includes wormholes like those used in "Light of
Other Days".

Though the subject is still controversial... In particular, I have
seen proponents of Superluminal stuff saying that violations of
causality and conservation appear only if we consider as true the
basic principle of Relativity that the speed of light is the maximum
speed for information exchange in the Universe. But from the moment
that we find something that allows information exchange at speeds >>c
- ie, Superluminal phenomena - then that principle is obviously not
valid anymore, and causality and conservation have to be redefined
under the new framework of speeds/phenomena.

From benboc at lineone.net  Wed Jan  3 11:32:38 2007
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:32:38 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net>

Surely, if this sort of resurrection is ever possible, it would result 
not in just one individual, but a whole range of them? (probably a huge 
number of them).
Of course, we can leave it as an exercise for those given to perpetual 
pointless pondering to determine which one is the 'real' Sasha :>


Eugen said: "people should look into life extension first, and cryonics 
second".

I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume 
these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as 
long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved 
in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading.

I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others?

ben zaiboc

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jan  3 12:17:13 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:17:13 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <20070103201713.GK6974@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:32:38PM +0000, ben wrote:

> Surely, if this sort of resurrection is ever possible, it would result 
> not in just one individual, but a whole range of them? (probably a huge 
> number of them).

Yes -- if it was possible. Giving effectively infinite resources.
Not in this universe.

> Of course, we can leave it as an exercise for those given to perpetual 
> pointless pondering to determine which one is the 'real' Sasha :>

If you can't even tell whether you succeeded, you clearly haven't.
But of course good enough is good enough for external observers,
who're already content with the rough person region. 
 
> Eugen said: "people should look into life extension first, and cryonics 
> second".
> 
> I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume 

You die right now -- what are your other options? (Nevermind
the handicap of starting with a day's or two worth of normothermic 
ischemia). 

> these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as 
> long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved 

If you keep going on in your present form your options are only getting
more, not less. So it's a really good idea to keep ticking on.

> in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading.

If you're no longer capable of going on, your only option is preserving
as much as possible. Which means cryopreservation.  
 
> I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others?

You don't have to like it for it to be true.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070103/0dc95bc5/attachment.bin 

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Jan  3 13:22:47 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:22:47 +0000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <20070103201713.GK6974@leitl.org>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <20070103201713.GK6974@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0701031322y2d515297y35ef78d8eaa5c1f4@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:32:38PM +0000, benboc wrote:
>
> > Surely, if this sort of resurrection is ever possible, it would result
> > not in just one individual, but a whole range of them? (probably a huge
> > number of them).
>
> Yes -- if it was possible. Giving effectively infinite resources.
> Not in this universe.
>

There is a quote usually attributed to Albert Einstein:
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."

A version of this is attributed to lecturer Dharma Kumar at Cambridge
University, England : "Time is a device to prevent everything
happening at once; space is a device to prevent it all happening in
Cambridge."



Abolishing time and space could make for a really bad hair day.



BillK

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Jan  3 13:20:30 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:20:30 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 07:32 PM 1/3/2007 +0000, ben zaiboc wrote:

snip

>I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume
>these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as
>long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved
>in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading.
>
>I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others?

Short of nanotech/uploading (which we don't have yet) no.

These are definitely not mutually exclusive choices.  Everyone I know in 
cryonics is also interested in life extension and anyone who has done 
suspensions (worked on 18 myself) will tell you that being suspended 
sucks.  It just sucks less than the alternative.

Only a few piped up that they were signed up.  Are there any here who are not?

Keith Henson





From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  3 17:28:22 2007
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:28:22 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?.
In-Reply-To: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <B99F3B28ADD2C141B737D735CE9156C3027D3F70@EXVBE012-4.exch012.intermedia.net>
	<01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <op.tllvpkt8ivvpma@shuttle>

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:33:12 -0500, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:

> If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable.

I might agree with that. Let's see if we might agree for the same reason:

I think that to say as you do that "something is frequent because it is  
probable" is to say that the probability of an outcome is a property of  
the object itself (e.g., a property of a die, as a physical disposition of  
the die before it is rolled) or (alternatively and perhaps more  
accurately) that the probability is a property of the entire experimental  
arrangement (e.g., a property of a die rolling experiment, which includes  
not only the physics of the die but also the physics of the surface on  
which it is thrown, the physics of the air turbulence, and the physics of  
anything else in the universe that affects the outcome).

Is that more or less what you mean? This is propensity theory, and I think  
it's no coincidence that the language about "property of the entire  
experimental arrangement" sounds similar to Bohr's.

-gts


From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com  Wed Jan  3 18:31:01 2007
From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism in Korea and Japan
Message-ID: <34084.41229.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Dear transhumanist friends,
   
       Just to start a great new year, the "Chosun Ilbo" ("Korean Daily", the largest newspaper in Korea, with a circulation of 2.5 million copies, much more than The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal) has published an interview about transhumanism, which has a very nice drawing depicting the continuous evolution of humankind, from humans to cyborgs to posthumans (angels and/or devils?:-) and can be seen here:
   
  http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/01/01/2007010100060.html
   
       The interview appeared on a front page, full page format, on January 1, 2007. The Korean reporter who interviewed me came specially all the way to Caracas, Venezuela, and this shows how interested they are about such issues in Korea. If you don't understand Korean, you can try a free Internet on-line translator like Altavista Babelfish, even if the translations are still not too good (for example, my last name gets translated as "grand nose"... as opposed to "big brain":-)
   
       Hopefully, soon, once we are posthumans, we will not need external translators. In the meantime, we will need some other enhancements...
   
       And now from Korea to Japan. A few days ago, another newsreporter from the Japanese "Mainichi Shimbun" (one of the largest newspapers in the world, with a daily circulation of 4 million copies in the morning and 2 million copies in the evening) has interviewed me and I will keep you posted once it appears. Also, since I am moving to Japan next Summer in order to work in the most prestigious development center in Asia, there will be plenty of other opportunities for more interviews and articles. If transhumanism is really going to move into the mainstream, we have to be more mainstream and leave behind the freaky and fringe environments.
   
       After publishing a book about transhumanism in Korean last year, I will be now targeting the Japanese and Chinese markets, so, If you have any good ideas about them please write to me in private: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com. I will be very happy and thankful for any feedback:-)
   
       Once again, have a very happy 2007, 2070, 2700, 7200...
   
       Transhumanisticaly yours,



La vie est belle!

Yos? (www.cordeiro.org)

Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070103/83f86dc7/attachment.html 

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Wed Jan  3 18:47:07 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:47:07 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <200701040303.l0433XKm029801@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



I am embarrassed and troubled to say I am not yet signed up.

It is definitely a real goal of mine, but primarily for family reasons I
haven't yet.  I just wish it was possible to sign up my entire family.  But
of course they all seem very hostile to the idea.

If canonizer.com takes off and makes some money, that would be my first
priority - financing the preservation of my entire family.  Especially my
and my wife's parents who are really getting up there in age.  That would
just tear me apart to not make it in time, or if I did have the money to
offer them straight out for free - have them completely turn any such offer
down.

Brent Allsop



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:21 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!

At 07:32 PM 1/3/2007 +0000, ben zaiboc wrote:

snip

>I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume
>these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as
>long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved
>in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading.
>
>I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others?

Short of nanotech/uploading (which we don't have yet) no.

These are definitely not mutually exclusive choices.  Everyone I know in 
cryonics is also interested in life extension and anyone who has done 
suspensions (worked on 18 myself) will tell you that being suspended 
sucks.  It just sucks less than the alternative.

Only a few piped up that they were signed up.  Are there any here who are
not?

Keith Henson




_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007
2:58 PM
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007
2:58 PM
 


From spike66 at comcast.net  Wed Jan  3 19:52:00 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:52:00 -0800
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <200701040406.l0446MeE013334@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> Only a few piped up that they were signed up.  Are there any here who are
> not?
> 
> Keith Henson


I.

spike






From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Jan  3 23:54:52 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:54:52 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <20070104075452.GQ6974@leitl.org>

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote:

> Only a few piped up that they were signed up.  Are there any here who are not?

I'm not -- no local presence. I'm involved in a local cryonics group, however.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070104/87d0b5d6/attachment.bin 

From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jan  4 02:46:15 2007
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:46:15 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable?
References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com><003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex><01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer><002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex>
	<004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <000201c72fed$90dff720$adbd1f97@nomedxgm1aalex>

>> it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!)
>> does not tell us what happens between times t1 and t2

John:
> Please name the observation you have recorded during
> that interval that Copenhagen can explain but
> Many Worlds cannot.

Copenhagen used to explain it by means of an intelligent 
act of non reversible observation. In "Physics and 
Philosophy" (Harper and Row, 1958, New York) Heisenberg 
writes "The observation itself changes the probability 
function discontinuously; it selects of all possible 
events the actual one that has taken place [...]. 
The discontinuous change in the probability function, 
however, takes place with the act of registration, 
because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge 
in the instant of registration that has its image in the 
discontinuous change of the probability function."

So, in the example under discussion an observer may collapse 
the superposition at time 2, observing and recording the
outcome. It seems to me that an observer may also collapse
the superposition at time t1, if, at that time. he becomes 
aware of the fact that the alpha particle did not hit 
the inner scintillating surface. Note that in the latter 
case there is no real act of non reversible registration,
since there is no measurement at all, and there is just
a change in the knowledge of the observer (at time t1).

Note also that Born wrote: "how could we rely on probability
predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something
real and objective?". This is important since Copenhagen,
as we saw above, is inclined to mix the reduction of the
probability packet, the (subjective?) change of knowledge
(Heisenberg), the consciousness (von Neumann), and the
reduction of the probability packet. 

The confusion becomes even greater when famous physicists 
try to introduce subjective probabilities in the Copenhagen
arena! http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608190

As for the MWI I suspect there is also some huge confusion
(and not just in myself, but in general). Because the aim 
of the MWI (as I understand it) is/was to explain physical 
events at a quantum level. In other words its aim is/was 
to avoid the 'black box' explanation given by Copenhagen, 
that is to say an explanation (sort of) that is completely 
_consistent_ at the classical level (observers, measurements, 
non reversible recording), but which does not say what is 
happening at the quantum level.

I'll try to re-think that infamous example (ie using the 
probability calculus of the consistent histories, the Heisenberg
picture and not the Schroedinger picture, etc.) to see
if MWI is stronger and more consistent than Copenhagen.

But I do not have time at the moment.

>> Another problem I have is the one-slit diffraction
> (different from the two-slit interference)

> Things are indeed a bit more complex when dealing with diffraction rather
> that interference, and if Copenhagen can explain what is going on more
> clearly than Many Worlds then I have lost the argument. 

Almost every one has lost his arguments: Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger,
de Broglie, von Neumann, even John Bell. So, in that case, 
you would be in a good company! (The MWI explanation of the one-slit
diffraction should to be a complex one, but I did not read anything
about it.)
 
> Best regards. And I want you to know I'm really enjoying this debate;
> regardless if I end up winning or losing I want you to know I think you 
> are a fine fellow.

I think all extropes are fine fellows. 

s.






From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net  Thu Jan  4 03:52:41 2007
From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 06:52:41 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net>

ben wrote:

>Eugen said: "people should look into life extension first, and cryonics 
>second".
>
>I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume 
>these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as 
>long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved 
>in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading.
>
>I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others?
>
>ben zaiboc
>

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive at all. In fact, I see 
cryonics only as a last resort. If my efforts-- such as they are-- at 
life extension to keep myself going until I can catch up to the 
technological LE curve are not successful, at least cryonics is a better 
choice than the alternative, which is complete material dissolution by 
being buried or immolated after death. A long shot is better than no 
shot at all.

And yes, I'm signed up with Alcor. It really isn't all that expensive, 
if you go with the life insurance option to pay for the preservation. 
Only amounts to a few tens of dollars a month.

Other choices? You could build yourself a spaceship and start traveling 
in a long elipse at relativistic speeds, arriving back to Earth in the 
(relative) future. It does seem a tad more expensive than cryonics, but 
certainly a surer way of making it to the future (and perhaps avoiding a 
"hard takeoff" singularity into the bargain!).

Joseph
http://transhumanist.blogspot.com

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Jan  4 05:00:48 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:00:48 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!
In-Reply-To: <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net>
References: <mailman.393.1167816493.22604.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net>
Message-ID: <20070104130048.GA6974@leitl.org>

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 06:52:41AM -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote:

> Other choices? You could build yourself a spaceship and start traveling 
> in a long elipse at relativistic speeds, arriving back to Earth in the 

Do you expect manned relativistic flight in the next 30-40 years?
Using which propulsion techniques? What about radiation background?
(Interstellar hydrogen is pretty bright at relativistic speeds).
Machines have none of these issues.

> (relative) future. It does seem a tad more expensive than cryonics, but 
> certainly a surer way of making it to the future (and perhaps avoiding a 
> "hard takeoff" singularity into the bargain!).

You can't avoid it. You will run smack into its expansion
wavefront when you head back. (You can't actually even escape
it, long-term, because it can accelerate way faster than you
and reach higher velocities than you, and it will colonize
systems ahead of you as it overtakes you).

Perhaps not really an option, even for the future.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel