[ExI] Free will was: Everett worlds

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 3:49 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>> All it requires is one universal wave function that evolves
>> as Schrodinger's deterministic equation says wave functions should evolve. That's
>> it.
>
>
>
> * > But Schrodinger's equation is time-dependent so that would imply
> some sort of multiversal absolute time. Something that
> Einstein demonstrated was impossible. Didn't he?*


No, Einstein demonstrated it was unnecessary, but as I have said General
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible theories, although both
work very well within their realm of applicability, General Relativity
works great for gravity but can say nothing about the nuclear forces,
quantum mechanics can say a lot about the nuclear forces but can't say
anything about gravity. One theory works for things that are large and
massive and the other theory works for things that are small and light, the
problem is that there are places where things are both small and massive,
and in those places physics has no idea what's going on.  Resolving the
contradiction between these two very good theories is probably the main
goal of modern physics, and it's not going to happen until somebody
develops a quantum theory of gravity.

* > If calling it "free will" bothers you, why not call it "agency"
> instead?*


And who has agency? Somebody who has free will. And who has free will?
Somebody who has agency. And round and round we go.

*> **I have to assume at some point in your life you did something that you
> perceived that your mind was responsible for having you do? *


Mind is what the brain does, so if my brain caused me to turn left rather
than right it must've been because neurons firing in my brain caused me to
do it. And those neurons either fired in that way for a reason in which
case it was deterministic, or they fired in that way for no reason at all
in which case it was random.


> * > Like perhaps replying to this email for example? What do you want
> to call that? Or do you not believe you have choices? Do you believe the
> future is already written?*


If there is no way to predict even in theory what's going to happen next
and the only way to find out is to wait and see then it doesn't really
matter if the future is already written or not, it's not even clear what
"already written" could mean.  And we know for a fact that things like that
do exist, for example it would be easy to set up a Turing Machine to find
the first even number that is not the sum of two primes and then stop, but
I can't predict what this very simple machine will do even in theory, all I
can do is watch and wait and see what it does, and I might be waiting
forever.

 >> It could be that the Real Numbers are not really real because there are
>> only about 10^83 atoms in the observable universe and physics has never
>> discovered a googolplex number of anything much less a aleph-0 or
>> aleph-1 infinite number of them.
>
>
> * > Sure it has: The Hamiltonian for those 10^83 atoms has ((10^83)^2
> - 10^83)/2 = 5*10^165 potential energy terms for those atoms,*


Your number is a 5 followed by 165 zeros, a googolplex is 10^(10^100),
that's a 1 followed by 10^100 zeros. Saying that one number is
astronomically larger than the other would be a vast understatement, but
that's about the strongest word the English language provides. Compared to
a googolplex 5*10^165 is zero to a wonderfully good approximation.


> > If uncomputable numbers are physically manifest then our physical eyes should
>> see evidence for at least one of them being at work in the physical universe,
>> but so far there is no such evidence.
>
>


>
>
>
> * > Maybe the physical manifestation of uncomputable numbers are
> responsible for the huge number of paranormal experiences people have
> claimed to have had consistently over many centuries of recorded  history.
> Stuff like UFOs, bigfoot, and ghosts not to mention Jesus on  the way to
> Damascus?*


Or maybe not!

>> I think it would be a mistake, the same sort of mistake Plato made, to
>> say the physical hypotenuse of a cardboard square is just an
>> approximation of he hypotenuse of the abstract unit square, I think it
>> would be much more accurate to say the hypotenuse of the abstract unit
>> square is just an approximation of the hypotenuse of a physical
>> cardboard square. Approximations are simpler than the real deal, and a
>> computer model of a hurricane is much simpler than a real physical
>> hurricane.
>
>
> * > Mistake? Plato could have been right. Why would you use something
> so crude as a cardboard square to test something so precise?*


Because no physicist has ever seen a mathematical hypotenuse, however they
have seen lines that connect diagonal corners on cardboard squares.
Mathematics is the language of physics but mathematics is not physics.
English is a language too but the English word "*cow*" cannot give milk.

> Theories are only useful when they can make testable predictions, when
>> they start predicting infinities that robs them of their ability to do
>> that. The Planck scale Is the point where Quantum Mechanics stops being
>> useful, and the center of a Black Hole marks the point where General
>> Relativity stops being useful. What if anything goes on a scale smaller
>> than the Planck scale and at the center of black holes is unknown.
>
>
>
>
>
> * > I think that if two theories that have never been falsified both
> independently stop being useful in a place that cannot be observed,  even
> in principle, then maybe it is a mistake to assume that anything  goes on
> in that place at all.*


Something was certainly going on during the first few nanoseconds of the
Big Bang because it eventually produce the universe we see today, but we
don't know what was going on because at time things were very small and
very dense and very massive, and neither General Relativity or Quantum
Mechanics can say what happens in situations like that. But something sure
is hell was going on. We need to find a way to resolve the inherent
contradiction between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but that's
not gonna happen until somebody finds a quantum theory of gravity.

>> What exactly is it that people do that cuckoo clocks don't? There is nothing
>> mystical about a "decision", it was either made for a reason in which
>> case we call it a rational decision, or it was made for no reason in
>> which case we call it a irrational decision.
>
>
> * >Cuckoo clocks cannot split universes by chiming every possible hour
> at once for starters.*


Some cuckoo clocks just keep chiming continuously and won't stop until they
run out of energy, human beings would call such a thing a malfunction but
it's still just cause and effect; For one reason or another one part of the
clock is now different from what it was before (a break in the drive wheel
or whatever) and so it behaves differently than the it did before. In one
Everett universe the drive wheel broke and in another it did not.

> >>
> * In other words, things that make decisions, always do so deliberately.**
> >> And a thing does something deliberately if it has decided to do so. And round
> and round we go.
>
> * > Not quite. All agents have a purpose when making decisions,*


And what is a purpose?  The reason something is done. And what is a reason?
A cause. What comes after a cause? An effect .


> >>> So for example in nature, temperatures dropping precipitously could never
> directly cause the spontaneous combustion of fuel.*
>
> >> Not so, all that would be needed for that to happen would be a
> battery, a thermostat and a match head.
>
>
> * > The unlikely confluence of all those components speaks of purpose
> and intent. Both hallmarks of agency.*


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the words purpose, intent or agency,
but whatever you mean by them do you think a Turing Machine would be
incapable of embodying those qualities?

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200914/5bb22ab1/attachment-0001.htm>