[ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church"

[Giulio Prisco]

Hi John,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:52 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:26 PM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > As I say in the book I am a big fan of Tipler's spirit, but I don't
>> always agree with the details of his ideas and theories. However, re
>> "We don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did,"
>> Tipler is persuaded that we can MAKE the universe into the sort of
>> universe where an Omega Point scenario happens (purposeful
>> annihilation of baryons and all that). Remaking the universe with a
>> new design is, I believe, the most extropic goal.
>
>
> Sure its extropic and sure it would have been great if Tipler was right but wishing does not make it so. Tipler thought the universe would stop expanding and collapse and we could manage that collapse and extract a infinite about of work out of it and thus perform a infinite number of calculations and achieve subjective immortality, which could be defined as never having a last thought. But we now know the universe is not heading for a collapse and the specific predictions he made that he said must be true for his idea to work turned out not to be true. Perhaps there is some other way to perform a infinite number of calculations, but if so it's not Tipler's wa

According to Tipler, future intelligent life will be able to reverse
the expansion and trigger a collapse by purposefully annihilating
baryonic matter.

>
>>>
>>> >> If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same interpretation because brains are made of matter.
>>
>>
>> >I think MW and MM are strongly interrelated interpretations, but not really the same interpretation. In MW the collapse happens objectively out there, in MM it happens subjectively in the mind.
>
>
> I don't understand the Many Minds bit. If mind is what brains do and there are many minds then there must be many brains, but there is only one John Clark brain around here so those other brains must be in other worlds.

In Many Minds, there aren't parallel worlds but parallel mental
streams. When you (the multiversal super-you) observe a binary quantum
event, you develop some kind of quantum multiple personality disorder
and split into two minds unaware of each other, and each aware only of
one of the two outcomes of the quantum event. I have the impression
that Everett had something like this in mind.

>>
>> > Superdeterminism says that the past determines the future not only for inert matter, but also for thinking observers. Your choice to measure a spin in one or another direction couldn't have been different,
>
> because it was predetermined.
>
> That's true for any sort of determinism, but superdeterminism says much more than that, it says that initial conditions were hyper precisely arranged 13.8 billion years ago so that now we always make exactly the wrong choice when we set up our experiments and we always end up getting fooled. That's a lot to swallow. I'm comfortable with the universe being indifferent about our welfare but if superdeterminism is true it's downright sadistic.

This is not part of the definition of superdeterminism, but a
(tautologically trivial) consequence of superdeterminism. If the past
of the universe determines the choices that you make now, then of
course the past of the universe must have been such that it
predetermines the choices that you actually make.
>
>>
>> > So superdeterminism is a way out of quantum paradoxes. But determinism and superdeterminism are the same only if we make the assumption that mind is matter. I don't understand your point on initial conditions.
>
>
> I don't think mind has anything to do with it. Both claim the laws of physics are deterministic and evolved from initial conditions, with regular determinism any initial condition will work fine, but out of the infinite number of initial conditions the universe could have been in 13.8 billion years ago superdeterminism could only work if it was in one of them, the one that would always fool us, so to my thinking it has one chance in infinity of being right.
>
> Well OK, I don't know for a fact the early universe could have started out in a infinite number of states, but at the very least it must be a astronomical number to the power of a astronomical number of states.
>
> John K Clark
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat