From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 00:17:54 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 19:17:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> Message-ID: I still do not see any verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, Jason Since when does science form theories before evidence? Cart before the horse. bill w On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:38?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 9:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hello Jason, >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > That is quite a big "if" in my world. >> > >> > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we >> have for it. I have put together a list of confirming evidence >> > here: >> > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence >> >> Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any >> verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and >> I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to >> test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm >> or deny them. >> > > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a > theory which we can verify with our senses or observations (or indirectly > by observing results of a measurement apparatus). > > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but > each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our confidence in the > truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation > would falsify the theory. > > Agree so far? > > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a > priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information theory: > > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in > time > > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe > with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't probabilistic in > nature, or laws that aren't easily described. > > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms > these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of gravity then > looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that > inverse square law of gravitational attraction. > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not > empirical. > > > >> > Hold on... so when checking quantum interference and the two slit >> > experiment, it seems to me that the experiment resulted in the >> > interpretations and theories we are discussing. So since I am >> doubting >> > information transfer between universes, I don't see how we can >> use this >> > experiment, which gives rise to what I am doubting, to justify or >> prove >> > what I'm doubting here. MWI is one interpretation among many, >> which are >> > not proved. So I would not count it as proof of this. >> > >> > All theories of QM accept a multiplicity of parts of reality. This is >> how the single-electron two slit experiment is explained (the >> > electron is in two places at once). Where the theories diverge is in >> saying what happens when we look at the system. >> > >> > CI says all the other possibilities a particle (or system of particles) >> might be in, while they were real, once observed all but one >> > of them then suddenly vanish. This is the issue Shrodinger pointed out >> in his cat experiment. How could a living (or dead cat) >> > suddenly disappear (or appear?) when we open the box? This seemed quite >> incredible. >> > >> > MW says the superposition spreads contagiously as superposed particles >> interact with other particles. See this presentation I put >> > together for how the superposition spreads, from particles to systems >> of particles (including our brains): >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NThhVw4hrPxOueAQEwr-MNfIQiBaPd9o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109779696990142678208&rtpof=true&sd=t >> > rue >> >> I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are >> theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit >> experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof. > > Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd >> rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump >> in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some >> writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. >> > > > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most > accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal places). > > >> > Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is >> right. >> > >> > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a >> trillion odds) >> > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after >> you found yourself surviving 40 iterations? >> >> No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an >> extremely lucky guy. ;) >> > > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: > > 1. You are very lucky > 2. The game is rigged > > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. > > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in > your assessment? > > > >> > Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death >> do not >> > have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no >> information >> > travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read >> (religious >> > relatives aside). >> > >> > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things occurring >> outside this world? >> >> Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude >> contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof >> related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert >> landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of >> interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this >> world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and >> philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage, >> but that does not mean I believe in them. >> > > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If > in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural prosthesis (say to > restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind > because you are agnostic on a theory of consciousness, or will you make a > best guess given available information? > > > >> > Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this >> is the >> > nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most >> likely >> > forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize >> it 100%. >> > >> > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer >> running some program for which we don't know whether or not it >> > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical >> problem how much power this computer will ultimately draw. But this >> > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and >> there will always remain problems for which currently known >> > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs. >> >> I agree. >> >> > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our >> best to expand physics and ontology, to expand the scope of >> > questions that are answerable. >> >> I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, >> developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at >> the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to >> theories which cannot be proven. > > > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the > theory of gravity or evolution. > > > They are an important tool, they can >> serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and >> will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. >> > > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be > obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where nothing we > believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some > theories are far more likely to be correct than others. > > > >> > Instead of seeing this as a limitation, perhaps this is instead a >> > strength? >> > >> > I think it's enough to acknowledge there will always be things we do >> not know. But I don't think that's ever a justification for >> > ceasing or limiting our exploration. >> >> Agreed! >> >> > Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in >> our >> > world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are >> > concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can >> do to >> > escape their medium of existence by themselves. >> > >> > You are defining their existence in terms of their material >> construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and say any >> > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and >> the material substrate is unimportant) then external simulation >> >> I do, since we live in a material universe. > > > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? > > > Therefore I do not think it >> makes sense to relax this constraint. >> > > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, > (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) Especially > given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. > > > >> > mainstream view in philosophy of mind, multiple realizability. If you >> destroy a mind in one place and rebuild it elsewhere, the >> > reconstructed person survives, even if different atoms are used. If our >> minds can be viewed as certain computations, then any mind >> > can be created in any universe in which a Turing machine can be built. >> >> Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that >> in our other thread about ID and consciousness. >> > > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my > opinion. > > > >> > > For this reason, universes are never entirely causally isolated >> from one another, they can peer into other universes, >> > extract >> > > information from them, and that information can effect the >> goings on in that universe. For example, the fact that I've >> > written the >> > >> > As per above, I still do not see how this could be. I'm very >> sorry. >> > >> > It might help to consider the, (what I consider to be analogous), >> question of how does mathematical knowledge enter our universe? >> > >> > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of >> a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes entirely >> > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or >> can happen in this universe? >> >> I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns >> and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical >> concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. >> > > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. > > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It > transcends us, and any attempt to define it. > > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the > source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical system we come up > with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, > where does truth come from, if not us or our axiomatic systems? > > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: > > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, > seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own creation; for > the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they > can?t have any others except those he has given to them. So this > alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least > something in them) exist objectively and independently of our mental acts > and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of > Platonism or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." > > -- Kurt G?del in ?Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics > and their implications p. 311? (1951) > > >> > feel as if this might end up as the qualia discussions, where one >> side >> > cannot see how the other cannot see. >> > >> > There is a loose analogy between separate physical universes and >> separated conscious minds. Things become incommunicable due to a >> > lack of shared points of reference. E.g., I can no more explain my >> concept of red to you, then two beings in two different universes >> > can communicate the meaning of a meter between each other. >> >> Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness. >> It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that >> individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I >> do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) >> > > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. > > Jason > > >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Jason >> > > >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Daniel >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Jason >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via >> extropy-chat wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023, >> efc--- via extropy-chat >> > wrote: >> > > > > Hello Stuart, >> > > > > >> > > > > Just a quick question from >> someone not very knowledgeable of cutting >> > > > > edge physics. >> > > > > >> > > > > You say that >> > > > > >> > > > > that a copy of you can >> truly be you, then you can relax because you are already >> > > immortal. You >> > > > > don't need to >> > > > > copy yourself because >> there are already plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, >> > you >> > > strewn about >> > > > > the >> > > > > multiverse. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > What I wonder is, are >> infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by proof or >> > is itone >> > > of many >> > > > > interpretations of >> > > > > current theories? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Anthropic considerations provide >> strong evidence, in the sense that the probability there's >> > only >> > > one >> > > > universe >> > > > > (with one kind of >> > > > > physics) is on the order of 1 in >> 10^122. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ >> > > > > >> > > > > This is as close to proof as >> anything science can provide. >> > > > > >> > > > > Jason >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, Daniel >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Stuart LaForge >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > This is a crucial >> point, for those of us interested in uploading, so I >> > think we >> > > should >> > > > > really >> > > > > understand it, >> yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please explain >> > further? >> > > > > >> > > > > Could you also >> please explain the comment about continuity and >> > not-discontinuity >> > > not >> > > > being >> > > > > the >> > > > > same thing? >> > > > > >> > > > > Ben >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > > extropy-chat >> mailing list >> > > > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > > extropy-chat mailing >> list >> > > > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > > extropy-chat mailing list >> > > > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > > extropy-chat mailing list >> > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > extropy-chat mailing list >> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > >> > > >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 00:52:05 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 20:52:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 8:19 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I still do not see any verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well > thought out theories, Jason > > Since when does science form theories before evidence? Cart before the > horse. bill w > Very often. Inflationary cosmology Higgs boson General and special relativity Just to name a few. Jason > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:38?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 9:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Hello Jason, >>> >>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: >>> >>> > That is quite a big "if" in my world. >>> > >>> > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we >>> have for it. I have put together a list of confirming evidence >>> > here: >>> > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence >>> >>> Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any >>> verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and >>> I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to >>> test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm >>> or deny them. >>> >> >> The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a >> theory which we can verify with our senses or observations (or indirectly >> by observing results of a measurement apparatus). >> >> Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but >> each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our confidence in the >> truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation >> would falsify the theory. >> >> Agree so far? >> >> Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a >> priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information theory: >> >> 1. The universe follows simple stable laws >> 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature >> 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in >> time >> >> None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe >> with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't probabilistic in >> nature, or laws that aren't easily described. >> >> We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms >> these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of gravity then >> looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that >> inverse square law of gravitational attraction. >> >> So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not >> empirical. >> >> >> >>> > Hold on... so when checking quantum interference and the two slit >>> > experiment, it seems to me that the experiment resulted in the >>> > interpretations and theories we are discussing. So since I am >>> doubting >>> > information transfer between universes, I don't see how we can >>> use this >>> > experiment, which gives rise to what I am doubting, to justify >>> or prove >>> > what I'm doubting here. MWI is one interpretation among many, >>> which are >>> > not proved. So I would not count it as proof of this. >>> > >>> > All theories of QM accept a multiplicity of parts of reality. This is >>> how the single-electron two slit experiment is explained (the >>> > electron is in two places at once). Where the theories diverge is in >>> saying what happens when we look at the system. >>> > >>> > CI says all the other possibilities a particle (or system of >>> particles) might be in, while they were real, once observed all but one >>> > of them then suddenly vanish. This is the issue Shrodinger pointed out >>> in his cat experiment. How could a living (or dead cat) >>> > suddenly disappear (or appear?) when we open the box? This seemed >>> quite incredible. >>> > >>> > MW says the superposition spreads contagiously as superposed particles >>> interact with other particles. See this presentation I put >>> > together for how the superposition spreads, from particles to systems >>> of particles (including our brains): >>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NThhVw4hrPxOueAQEwr-MNfIQiBaPd9o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109779696990142678208&rtpof=true&sd=t >>> > rue >>> >>> I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are >>> theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit >>> experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof. >> >> Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd >>> rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump >>> in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some >>> writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. >>> >> >> >> You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most >> accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal places). >> >> >>> > Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is >>> right. >>> > >>> > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a >>> trillion odds) >>> > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true >>> after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations? >>> >>> No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an >>> extremely lucky guy. ;) >>> >> >> Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: >> >> 1. You are very lucky >> 2. The game is rigged >> >> Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. >> >> Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, >> in your assessment? >> >> >> >>> > Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my >>> death do not >>> > have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no >>> information >>> > travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read >>> (religious >>> > relatives aside). >>> > >>> > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things >>> occurring outside this world? >>> >>> Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude >>> contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof >>> related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert >>> landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of >>> interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this >>> world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and >>> philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage, >>> but that does not mean I believe in them. >>> >> >> It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If >> in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural prosthesis (say to >> restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind >> because you are agnostic on a theory of consciousness, or will you make a >> best guess given available information? >> >> >> >>> > Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this >>> is the >>> > nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most >>> likely >>> > forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize >>> it 100%. >>> > >>> > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer >>> running some program for which we don't know whether or not it >>> > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical >>> problem how much power this computer will ultimately draw. But this >>> > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and >>> there will always remain problems for which currently known >>> > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our >>> best to expand physics and ontology, to expand the scope of >>> > questions that are answerable. >>> >>> I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, >>> developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at >>> the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to >>> theories which cannot be proven. >> >> >> Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the >> theory of gravity or evolution. >> >> >> They are an important tool, they can >>> serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and >>> will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. >>> >> >> I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be >> obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where nothing we >> believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some >> theories are far more likely to be correct than others. >> >> >> >>> > Instead of seeing this as a limitation, perhaps this is instead a >>> > strength? >>> > >>> > I think it's enough to acknowledge there will always be things we do >>> not know. But I don't think that's ever a justification for >>> > ceasing or limiting our exploration. >>> >>> Agreed! >>> >>> > Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in >>> our >>> > world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine >>> are >>> > concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can >>> do to >>> > escape their medium of existence by themselves. >>> > >>> > You are defining their existence in terms of their material >>> construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and say any >>> > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and >>> the material substrate is unimportant) then external simulation >>> >>> I do, since we live in a material universe. >> >> >> How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? >> >> >> Therefore I do not think it >>> makes sense to relax this constraint. >>> >> >> Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, >> (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) Especially >> given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. >> >> >> >>> > mainstream view in philosophy of mind, multiple realizability. If you >>> destroy a mind in one place and rebuild it elsewhere, the >>> > reconstructed person survives, even if different atoms are used. If >>> our minds can be viewed as certain computations, then any mind >>> > can be created in any universe in which a Turing machine can be built. >>> >>> Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that >>> in our other thread about ID and consciousness. >>> >> >> The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my >> opinion. >> >> >> >>> > > For this reason, universes are never entirely causally >>> isolated from one another, they can peer into other universes, >>> > extract >>> > > information from them, and that information can effect the >>> goings on in that universe. For example, the fact that I've >>> > written the >>> > >>> > As per above, I still do not see how this could be. I'm very >>> sorry. >>> > >>> > It might help to consider the, (what I consider to be analogous), >>> question of how does mathematical knowledge enter our universe? >>> > >>> > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of >>> a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes entirely >>> > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or >>> can happen in this universe? >>> >>> I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns >>> and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical >>> concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. >>> >> >> I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. >> >> I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It >> transcends us, and any attempt to define it. >> >> This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the >> source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical system we come up >> with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, >> where does truth come from, if not us or our axiomatic systems? >> >> Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: >> >> "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, >> seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own creation; for >> the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they >> can?t have any others except those he has given to them. So this >> alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least >> something in them) exist objectively and independently of our mental acts >> and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of >> Platonism or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." >> >> -- Kurt G?del in ?Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics >> and their implications p. 311? (1951) >> >> >>> > feel as if this might end up as the qualia discussions, where >>> one side >>> > cannot see how the other cannot see. >>> > >>> > There is a loose analogy between separate physical universes and >>> separated conscious minds. Things become incommunicable due to a >>> > lack of shared points of reference. E.g., I can no more explain my >>> concept of red to you, then two beings in two different universes >>> > can communicate the meaning of a meter between each other. >>> >>> Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness. >>> It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that >>> individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I >>> do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) >>> >> >> >> It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. >> >> Jason >> >> >>> Best regards, >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> > >>> > Jason >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > Daniel >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Jason >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Best regards, >>> > > Daniel >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Jason >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via >>> extropy-chat wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023, >>> efc--- via extropy-chat >>> > wrote: >>> > > > > Hello Stuart, >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Just a quick question from >>> someone not very knowledgeable of cutting >>> > > > > edge physics. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > You say that >>> > > > > >>> > > > > that a copy of you can >>> truly be you, then you can relax because you are already >>> > > immortal. You >>> > > > > don't need to >>> > > > > copy yourself because >>> there are already plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, >>> > you >>> > > strewn about >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > multiverse. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > What I wonder is, are >>> infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by proof or >>> > is itone >>> > > of many >>> > > > > interpretations of >>> > > > > current theories? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Anthropic considerations provide >>> strong evidence, in the sense that the probability there's >>> > only >>> > > one >>> > > > universe >>> > > > > (with one kind of >>> > > > > physics) is on the order of 1 in >>> 10^122. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ >>> > > > > >>> > > > > This is as close to proof as >>> anything science can provide. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Jason >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Best regards, Daniel >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Stuart LaForge >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > This is a >>> crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, so I >>> > think we >>> > > should >>> > > > > really >>> > > > > understand it, >>> yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please explain >>> > further? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Could you also >>> please explain the comment about continuity and >>> > not-discontinuity >>> > > not >>> > > > being >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > same thing? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Ben >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > > > > extropy-chat >>> mailing list >>> > > > > >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> > > > > >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > > > > extropy-chat mailing >>> list >>> > > > > >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> > > > > >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > > > > extropy-chat mailing list >>> > > > > >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> > > > > >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >_______________________________________________ >>> > > > extropy-chat mailing list >>> > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> > > > >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >_______________________________________________ >>> > > extropy-chat mailing list >>> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> > > >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >_______________________________________________ >>> > extropy-chat mailing list >>> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> > >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 02:24:09 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 22:24:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <6883984a-8825-512d-de5f-5d01f099183f@swisscows.email> <61498c06-ffc7-1bdf-4be3-d3135e4add96@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 6:17 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening Jason, > Good morning, ?? > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Sorry for being unclear. I meant that identity includes both. Not > just > > hw and not just sw, buth both, combined. I'm not saying it solves > all > > problems, but it seems to me as if it does solve at least some > > challenges. > > > > Ahh I see what you mean now. One could define personal identity in terms > of the continuity of the same body and mind, but then the > > question is how strict must the similarity be for the identity to hold? > > Yes, it is a very common sense model, but just like ethics, it is > probably easy to come up with corner cases and thought experiments which > poke holes at it at the extremes. > Conventional theories of personal identity are fine for conventional situations. It's only in unconventional situations we can see where or how they might break. (Like Einstein considering what would happen if he approached the speed of light.) > > If completely strict, you end up with the empty individualism of #1, if > unrestricted you end up with the open individualism of #3, > > since if one permits gradual changes, it is still subject to gradually > morphing into any other person, and even with the restriction > > of bodily continuity, our metabolism is constantly churning out old > material and replacing it with new material, (something like half > > the atoms in your brain are replaced every 8 days through metabolism). > What if these atoms were collected and used to construct a new > > version of you, Ship of Theseus style? Which one are you? How do we > track bodily continuity when we are each, effectively rivers > > through which atoms flow? > > In terms of identity, that's why I would think of two anchors, bodily > continuity and mind continuity. What about something like an amoeba dividing. Can we say which one the original becomes? I see three possible answers: 1. It becomes one of the two 2. becomes neither of the two 3. It becomes both of the two The answer that to my intuition seems to make the least sense is #1. There is also the dimension of location, > to cover the case of id when copied. That would change location from 1x > to 2x, thus somehow "violating" the id, making it a separate one. But > I'll stop for now, because I think you'll get to that below. > This reminds me of a theory called the closest continuer theory of personal identity. > > > > Well, over the course of a life time, and assuming no external > > interference, I'd say that there is a continuity of both body and > mind, > > as per the laws governing the workings of body and mind. > > > > When it comes to the question of if this is a 10% person or a 100% > > person, that would depend on the context and purpose of the > conversation > > it is used in. > > > > > And is there a continuous spectrum between any two persons? > > > > If you're talking about one organism separated by time, according > to the > > above, I'd say yes. Separate persons, no. But I think I > misunderstand you here. > > > > > > I mean from the perspective of within an infinite reality, as described > here: > > > > "You see, The Object contains the Continuum of Souls. It is a connected > set, with a frothy, fractal structure, of rather high > > dimensionality. The Continuum contains an infinite number of Souls, all > Souls in fact, and an infinite number of them are You. Or at > > I'm sorry, but I think you need to unpack that for me. I have a feeling > that is a quote from a book, so for me, a "continuum of souls" and > "connected > set, with a frothy, fractal structure, of rather high dimensionality" > means nothing to me. > I just mean within an infinite and comprehensive reality, all possible observers exist, and every of all possible variations of thet observer exist. Thus there is an infinite and continuous spectrum of people out there, with similar nearly identical bodies and memories, many more like you now than you are like yourself from two weeks ago. On what account then, do we identify our current self with yourself from two weeks ago, and not with any of these other, much closer (in terms of bodies and minds) to our current self? What does causal history bring to the table? I see the practical appeal, in that it's an easy to apply rule of thumb, but I am not understanding the mechanics or theoretical basis of it. And moreover, how do we handle personal identity in many-worlds, when every one of our copies in all the many branches share the history of a continuously changing body and mind? > > least, close enough to being You so that nobody could tell the > difference. Not even You. > > And the Continuum also contains an infinite number of souls that are > almost You. And an infinite number that are sort of You. And > > because it is a Continuum, and because there is really no objective way > to tell which one is really You, then any method one uses to > > try to distinguish between You and non-You will produce nothing but > illusion. In a sense, there is only one You, and it is Everyone. > > Of course, You can tell which one is you, can?t you? Or can you?" > > -- Douglas Jones in "A Conversation" (1996) > > I'm sorry, it could be the time of night, or it could be my two beers at > the birthday dinner I just came back from, but I do not understand what > Douglas is talking about here. This is a quote from the short story "a conversation: on aliens online", I thought I had linked to it, but if not it is on http://frombob.to (It's one of my favorite stories, I highly recommend it). > > > Ah, but this was my badly made point above, that only > bodily-continuity > > is not enough. In a cell there is no mind, so the question then is > not > > relevant. > > > > > if we ask: "what experiences will this body eventually have?" I > think this perspective would have to say the > > experiences of both > > > twins belong to the future continuations of this cell. > > > > Same here. Cell is not enough. The continuity I'd say has to cover > both > > the body and the mind. > > > > Do concussions (or any discontinuous break in consciousness) end a > person? What about a coma, when someone is unconscious for many > > months and then awakens with a (materially) completely new body? If > continuity of body AND mind are strictly required and must be > > continuous, then I see interruptions in either as posing problems. > > In the case of a concussion, the body is the same (roughly), and in case > of the mind, there is continuity in that memory, experiences, my daily > flow of events from before and after the interruption are the same. > Coma, the same thing. So I think you make a good point, and when I say > continuity I do not mean being awake or conscious. I believe I am the > same person before and after I wake up from sleeping, and I believe I am > the same before and after fainting. The continuity is one of experience, > identity and memory and body. Neither is interrupted by concussions or > coma. > My point with these is one is interrupted discontinuously. With the coma, the conscious continues but the body changes (between points of consciousness), and with the concussion, the body is the same but the consciousnss discontinuously changes (between trying to catch a football, to say waking in a hospital). > However! > > To illustrate the other side of the equation, let's say you are "mind > wiped". We have bodily continuity, but not one of the mind, and in that > case I would say that it is not the same person before and after. > Let's say the previous 10 memories are wiped (as generally happens in head trauma that causes loss of consciousness), is this, in your mind, a discontinuous interruption of continuity? > > > This is strange, and something we rarely consider, but it all > comes down to: why am I experiencing this perspective, > > rather than some > > > other? What pre-conditions were necessary for me to have been > born, be alive, and experience life? > > > > > > Did it depend on certain atoms?--(what if my mom ate a different > lunch when she was pregnant?) Does it depend on > > certain > > > genes?--(what if my eyes had been a different color?) > > > > I think here maybe we start to diverge into questions of existence, > > possibly reasons for living, and possibly teleological ideas. > > > > I don't mean to ask for what purpose or reason we are here, I mean > rather: what is the reason you are you, and I am me? What was > > necessary (physically) for you to be the person you are peering through > your eyes? What physical changes might have interrupted or > > prevented that from happening? What accounts for or explains the fact > that you are Daniel (rather than someone else, or no one)? > > The reason? My parents and my upbriging. But this is not your point. > Could you take your reasoning to the next step, because I feel there is a > good > point coming here. > This is something I believe theories of personal identity must (or should at least try) to answer. What had to happen, for you to exist with consciousness. If, for example, a different sperm fertilized the egg, would you be experiencing life as a your brother or sister, or would you be experiencing nothing at all? What if the sperm was only one gene different, causing your eyes to be a different color? Would you be non-existent, or would you still exist, just with different color eyes? > > But the fact is that you (and I) were. The probability of it is an > after > > construction and also why I am not a fan of philosophical arguments > > suchas Pascals wager. I think statistics, especially applied in > this > > way, and across ethereal realms leaving our material world, tend > to lead > > us astray. > > > > Not everyone buys the appropriateness of using probability arguments in > this way; but I consider it effectively the same thing as > > Are you serious? I thought I was basically the only one. I think it falls under the category of "observer selection bias". It's a big problem in physics and cosmology. You see it mentioned in experiments that involve the simulation argument, Boltzmann brains, the sleeping beauty problem, the doomsday argument, quantum suicide, anthropic reasoning, etc. Here are some references that might be useful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Bias_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument In particular look at the criticisms of these ideas and reasoning, who is making them and what they are saying. Do you have a > link to someone who does not like using probability arguments in this > way? The reason I am asking is that, as you can see, I am not able to > clearly state why I feel the way I do, and perhaps by reading someone > who actually spent a philosophical career thinking about it, my own > position could become a bit more clear. > Let me know if the above ones are useful and if not perhaps I can find some others. > > using fine-tuning of the universe: it seems something improbable has > happened: is there an explanation? For the fine-tuning, the > > answer that demystifies the improbability is the anthropic principle. > For why you were born, when it seems so unlikely, the answer > > that demystifies the improbability is open individualism. > > To me, this sounds like the illusion of probability. I can take a smoked > almond from a bowl on my table and drop it on the floor and the > probability of it ending up there, starting from the big bang is > infinitely low. The probability of it ending up on the floor after I > drop it is infinitely high. So depending on my human frame of reference, > my starting point, I can toy with probabilities and make everything seem > like magic. I think, this is also why I do not like statistical > arguments about things which are not even part of our universe. > You seem to be advocating something like the "Relative Self Sampling Assumption" and rejectibg anything like the Absolute Self Sampling Assumption, as defined here: https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list at googlegroups.com/msg04665.html > > I think we covered this in the original scenario. I'd argue that a > copy, > > then restored, is not the same person due to the mind factor not > being > > continuous. I do see a possibility for the same person in a ship of > > theseus procedure, since body and mind continuity would not be > violated, > > but only transformed. > > > > What do you make the ship of Theseus where the old/original planks are > secretly gathered and used to reconstruct the ship in its > > original form? What would you make of applying the same to a person's > body, whose old atoms are collected and reformed into an > > identical copy? > > If you mean a ship of theseus transformation from original to copy to > original, I think that would fit in with my model, since its not a copy, > and since continuity would be preserved. Or maybe I a fooling myself? ;) > I mean let's say we gather all the exhaled CO2 and excreted urine, and overtime build them up a copy of the body at a previous point in time where all those atoms were in the original body. We now have two versions of the person, with continuous claims on the material substrate. Another possibility to consider: if you don't like transporters discontinuously swapping matter, what if we run a brain simulation in a VM, pause the VM, send it's image over the internet to another computer, and unpause the VM image? Has the consciousness continuously transferred to a new medium and is it the same consciousness as existed before? > > Yes and no. Depending on how the upload was done, from where to > where, > > and how the continuity of the mind was handled. If a ship of > theseus > > operation was performed, and then copied onto a different set of > > hardware, that would be one continuous and one copy. If you have > linked > > clones, I could see preservation, but also waste if the two clones > > always had to give the same answer. Although from a disaster > recovery > > point of view, that would be a fascinating concept! > > > > Yes, this is actually a theme of the TV show Foundation. Backup clones > are kept, and new memories are constantly synchronized to > > their brains. > > Ah, did that one start again? It did. It's airing now. I saw season one, and apart from there > being a bit too much violence, it did have some interesting ideas. But > nothing beats the original books in my opinion. =) > I wish there were a copy on audible. > > > the first time, and in a dying brain when the last two surviving > neurons fire for the last time. Then from the mental > > continuity > > > perspective all mine states of all organisms are part of a > connected set. > > > > I don't see how. It's separate organs, with separate reactions. I > can > > however see and fully acknowledge that from a process point of > view, or > > "tree of life" point of view, we are all related. But that's purely > > biologically and not related to my mind and sense of identity. > > > > Here I was operating from the assumption of mind continuity. This is > what I would say is the view (common among > > physicalists/materialists/functionalists) where if you stepped into a > teleporter, you would survive on the other end when you were > > reconstructed, even if new atoms were used. If we can survive > teleporters, then it's the mind-state that must be preserved for > > survival, not any particular collection of atoms. In this case, if the > last mind state of a dying brain happens to be the same mind > > state of another brain which continues on, this is in effect, identical > to the transporter scenario. The mind survives because its > > mind-state is instantiated elsewhere where it continues on, despite that > different material is used. > > Ahhh, got it. I do see a break in continuity there, so for me, that > would be a new, identical clone. > ?? > > This does not work if you require bodily continuity as well, as every > night when we sleep, atoms are discontinuously replaced between > > successive moments of consciousness (between when we fall asleep at > night and awaken in the morning, our bodies have changed, food > > has metabolized and become part of our bodies, carbon from our bodies > has been exhaled as CO2, etc.). > > But there is continuity in the fact that the bodys processes are not > interrupted, atoms are replaced, but the system is not interrupted. What about swapping an atom (a discrete unit) makes it continuous? Is it the fact that it's a small enough change that we don't notice it? Is there a maximum number of atoms we can swap at once without losing the person? If so, what is your guess for how big that number can be? With > the mind as well. Might adding locality as nother dimension work? Or > make it more clear? I think it makes things less clear. (At least, closest continuer theories make less sense to me). E.g., What if the two copies are created the same Planck length away from the original? What ig one is closer but is missing an eyelash, or a neuron? It doesn't provide good justifications to its answers and seems very ad hoc. > > > Please do! No need for me to armchair philosophize, when I can > read a > > paper about some fascinating biological procedure! > > > > Hodan Twins: > ... > > > > Great! Thank you very much. =) > > > > Laws of physics? This one, I don't understand, but it is > getting late > > > here, so I'll blame my tired brain. ;) > > > > > > Physics reveals a complete symmetry and interchangeability > between spaces and time. But we seem to have a bias against > > the latter > > > situation. If we take time-space symmetry seriously, we must > recognize this as a bias internal to us. It suggests that > > duplicates are > > > self, as much as the same self is preserved over time. > > > > I think that is a very big step and conclusion to make. Could you > divide > > it up into smaller steps? Maybe then I'll see the point. > > > > > > I've attached and excerpt from something I wrote that goes into this in > more detail, in particular see the story about the > > "Duplicators vs. Restorers" > > Hmm, I did not get any attachments. Maybe they were scrubbed by the list > software? Could you send them directly to my email? > Will do. > > (Also, I have included also the story of the deep space travelers, which > also introduces some of the issues with personal identity, > > particularly as it it pertains to duplication. It's not relevant to the > interchangeability of space and time, but you might still > > find it interesting.) > > > > I also found these archived pages of an old member of this list, Lee > Corbin, who wrote several articles on personal identiy, which > > are an interesting read, and relate to this topic: > > * "Why Duplicates Are Self: A Proof" > > * "The Pit and the Duplicate" > > * "Continuity of Identity: The Last Refuge of the Soul" > > > > > > > > > Thanks. Note that this article just introduces the idea, but > doesn't really argue for it. I would recommend Zuboff's > > linked paper to > > > see the reasons for believing it. > > > > Thank you, will keep that in mind, and have a look at the paper. =) > > > > Thank you as well, for your always great questions and for making me > have to think. :-) > > Had no idea! And here I thought that you were just drumming up old and > well thought through thoughts, and I was the one who was doing all the > thinking! ;) I find this great for challenging myself and forcing me to > think through what I believe and why I believe it. > Excellent to hear. That's the main benefit I get from participating in these discussions. To write is to think. > The only disadvantage and the one who suffers is my wife who complains > that I write long letters to strangers, and never a long letter to her. ;) > Aww. Perhaps she should join us on this list. ?? Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > > > > > The question you are asking about below > concerns the topic in philosophy known as personal > > identity. That > > > > topic asks: which I > > > > experiences belong to which person's, in > other words, how do we define the temporal borders of a > > person. > > > > There are in general three > > > > approaches generally taken: > > > > 1. No-self/Anatta/empty individualism: each > observer-moment, or thought-moment is its own isolated > > thing, > > > > there's no such thing as a > > > > self which has multiple distinct > thought-moments. > > > > > > > > 2. Continuity theories/closed > individualism: either bodily or psychological continuity. A self is > > a > > > > continual things either though > > > > the continuation of some physical body, or > some more abstractly defined psychological organization. > > > > > > > > 3. Universalism/open Individualism: There > are no bodily or psychological preconditions for an > > experience > > > > being yours, all experiences > > > > are I, and in truth there is only one mind. > > > > > > > > I think #2 leads to contradictions. #1 and > #3 are logically consistent. Between #1 and #3, #3 is > > more > > > useful > > > > (it permits decision > > > > theory) and further, there are strong > probabilistic arguments for it. For example, those given in > > "One > > > self: > > > > the logic of experience" > > > > which I cite here: > > > > > > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#10_Open_Individualism_and_the_Afterlife > > > > > > > > One consequence of Open Individualism is > that it dissolves any concern of whether some particular > > copy is > > > > you, as all conscious > > > > perspectives are you. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via > extropy-chat wrote: > > > > My position is that a separate > uploaded copy of me is not me, thus would not grant the > > physical me > > > > immortality. I would > > > > look at it as a mind-seed, or > something slightly similar to a part of me that lives on, just > > as a > > > part > > > > of me lives on in > > > > a child, although actually that part > is way more of me, than in a child. > > > > > > > > However, when talking about continuity > and uploading, I think the ship of theseus uploading > > is much > > > > more interesting from > > > > an identity point of view. > > > > > > > > As some, or all of you already know, > imagine that I'm uploaded neruon by neuron, over time. I > > would > > > not > > > > have a break, and > > > > my mind would transition onto the new > media. > > > > > > > > I would like to know what the people > here who do not believe uploading grants a form of > > immortality > > > > think about that > > > > scenario? Would it fit in with your > idea of identity and would you see yourselves being > > "immortal" > > > > through a shop of > > > > theseus procedure if it were possible? > > > > > > > > As for the copy approach, a starting > point for me would be that my identity is probably based > > on my > > > > mind, sense of > > > > continuity and location. In a copy, > continuity and location would go 2x, and thus not work > > with the > > > > definition of > > > > identity. In a theseus there would be > no 2x, both continuity would be perserved, and location > > would > > > be > > > > single. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023, Ben Zaiboc via > extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > On 25/08/2023 20:11, Darin > Sunley wrote: > > > > > > > > An important component of > what a lot of people want out of immortality is not so > > much > > > > continuity > > > > as it is > not-experiencing-discontinuity [And no, they're not the same thing]. > > > > > > > > If I'm dying of cancer, > and you do a brain scan, the resulting upload will > > remember being > > > > me, but > > > > /I'm/ still gonna > experience a painful death. And no, killing me painlessly, or > > even > > > > instantaneously, during or > in the immediate aftermath of the brain scan doesn't > > solve the > > > > problem > > > > either. > > > > > > > > If "me" is ever on two > substrates simultaneously, you may have copied me, but you > > haven't > > > > moved > > > > me, and a copy, by > definition, isn't the me I want to be immortal. > > > > > > > > > > > > So this 'me' that you are > talking about, must be something that, when copied, somehow > > changes > > > > into 'not-me'. > > > > I don't understand this. If it's > an exact copy, how is it not exactly the same? How can > > there > > > not > > > > now be two > > > > 'me's? Two identical beings, in > every way, including their subjective experience, with > > no > > > > discontinuity with > > > > the original singular being? > > > > > > > > When I hit 'send' on this > message, everyone on the list will get a copy, and I will > > keep a > > > copy. > > > > Which one is > > > > the real message? If they were > conscious, why would that make any difference? > > > > > > > > You say "you may have copied me, > but you haven't moved me". But how do you move data? > > You make > > > a > > > > second copy > > > > of it then delete the first > copy. So destroying copy 1 when copy 2 is made would be > > 'moving > > > me', > > > > yet you say > > > > it wouldn't. Can you clarify > why? I can't see (short of a belief in an uncopyable > > supernatural > > > > 'soul') how > > > > this could be. > > > > > > > > This is a crucial point, for > those of us interested in uploading, so I think we should > > really > > > > understand it, > > > > yet it makes no sense to me. > Would you please explain further? > > > > > > > > Could you also please explain > the comment about continuity and not-discontinuity not > > being the > > > > same thing? > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Fri Sep 1 15:13:56 2023 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 11:13:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] US to Build Robot Army to Counter China's Growing Power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My friend who runs a venture capital firm that invests in this type of tech like the XQ-58A and who is a former Top Gun pilot notes the proposed autonomous tech always has a human in the loop for kill orders. Despite the need for and value in tech that can go on missions too risky for humans, there appears to be a strong philosophy among DOD and developers still that killing should only be done directly by humans. As one person told me, ?so the horror lives on someone?s soul?so that war becomes the real enemy.? -Henry > On Aug 31, 2023, at 10:41 AM, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > ?Bill, it is all about defining the battle... > >> These naughty AIs are beating humans at everything! > > Why not see who can perform the worst? ;) > > Best regards, Daniel > > >> >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 1 15:22:44 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 08:22:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] US to Build Robot Army to Counter China's Growing Power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002001d9dce8$288f8cc0$79aea640$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of Henry Rivera via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] US to Build Robot Army to Counter China's Growing Power >... there appears to be a strong philosophy among DOD and developers still that killing should only be done directly by humans. As one person told me, ?so the horror lives on someone?s soul?so that war becomes the real enemy.? -Henry Henry, is there any gray area? Such as: can a robot drone fire if fired upon? What if a flying robot drone detects another flying robot drone and is fired upon? Is it allowed to fire in "self" defense? This is a question in need of an answer quickly, for we may be seeing robot^2 battles in the skies over Ukraine in the immediately foreseeable. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 15:37:38 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 16:37:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] US to Build Robot Army to Counter China's Growing Power In-Reply-To: <002001d9dce8$288f8cc0$79aea640$@rainier66.com> References: <002001d9dce8$288f8cc0$79aea640$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 16:24, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Henry, is there any gray area? Such as: can a robot drone fire if fired upon? What if a flying robot drone detects another flying robot drone and is fired upon? Is it allowed to fire in "self" defense? > > This is a question in need of an answer quickly, for we may be seeing robot^2 battles in the skies over Ukraine in the immediately foreseeable. > > spike > _______________________________________________ My opinion is that any rules for keeping humans in the chain will be temporary. Human reactions are too slow when compared to AI. That is fine when it is one drone tracking a possible terrorist leader. But when you are talking about thousands of drones and slaughterbots, then human agents are out of the question. The AIs will be given a high-level order, then left to work out the best solution themselves. Human thinking time will be a liability. BillK From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Fri Sep 1 19:31:29 2023 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 15:31:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] US to Build Robot Army to Counter China's Growing Power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9BC465E8-08BE-4849-8A57-9EFEFC710FCD@alumni.virginia.edu> I agree, it?s just a matter of time before they would have to be fully autonomous, if for no other reason to respond to enemy threats of the same, which would have the advantage of time due to not needing human intervention as you noted. The issue may come down to public support for that aka trust. I suspect obtaining public trust will be stalled on as long as possible, and there is unlikely to be a consensus. Assurances regarding kill switches, overrides, failsafes and the like will be necessary in that PR campaign. ?Friendly fire? from our own autonomous units due to malfunction, poor programming, or hacking would be a nightmare. -Henry > On Sep 1, 2023, at 11:38 AM, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > ?On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 16:24, spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> Henry, is there any gray area? Such as: can a robot drone fire if fired upon? What if a flying robot drone detects another flying robot drone and is fired upon? Is it allowed to fire in "self" defense? >> >> This is a question in need of an answer quickly, for we may be seeing robot^2 battles in the skies over Ukraine in the immediately foreseeable. >> >> spike >> _______________________________________________ > > > My opinion is that any rules for keeping humans in the chain will be > temporary. Human reactions are too slow when compared to AI. > That is fine when it is one drone tracking a possible terrorist leader. > But when you are talking about thousands of drones and slaughterbots, > then human agents are out of the question. The AIs will be given a > high-level order, then left to work out the best solution themselves. > Human thinking time will be a liability. > > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Sun Sep 3 20:33:45 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 13:33:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] monster under the bed Message-ID: <002701d9dea5$f05ee020$d11ca060$@rainier66.com> Perhaps you have seen the dramatic videos of the burning Teslas after they had been partially submerged in seawater. The mechanism is well-known and of course it is dangerous. It occurred to me today that if A Telsaer even drives thru a deep puddle of seawater, that car cannot be trusted. The only way I can see to bring it back to garage-worthiness is to submerge the damn thing completely in fresh water, then immediately blow dry it with lots of fast-moving dry air, like a car version of those annoying hand dryers in the public restrooms. This of course means new upholstery everywhere and lots of really big bills. Conclusion: the Tesla is not a practical car anywhere were storm surge is even theoretically possible. But what if. some Florida Teslaer had their ride partially submerged, enough to wet some of the batteries, but the upholstery stayed dry? Then they arranges to ship it elsewhere, sell it in a place which never heard of storm surge. Then, some unsuspecting used car buyer has a ticking timebomb parked in the garage underneath their bedroom. Oy vey. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Sun Sep 3 21:55:40 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2023 23:55:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <6883984a-8825-512d-de5f-5d01f099183f@swisscows.email> <61498c06-ffc7-1bdf-4be3-d3135e4add96@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <293f5e07-cea8-135b-2d41-c37eb278676a@swisscows.email> Good evening, (edit: sending again due to these strange google mail server errors that temporarily blocks the message from the list sometimes.) On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 6:17 PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > Good evening Jason, > > > > Good morning, > > ?? > > > Yes, it is a very common sense model, but just like ethics, it is > probably easy to come up with corner cases and thought experiments which > poke holes at it at the extremes. > > Conventional theories of personal identity are fine for conventional situations. It's only in unconventional situations we can see > where or how they might break. (Like Einstein considering what would happen if he approached the speed of light.) I agree, as long as the unconventional situations are not impossible. If they are impossible, and can never be, they might instead risk confusing the matter while yielding very little insight. > > If completely strict, you end up with the empty individualism of #1, if unrestricted you end up with the open > individualism of #3, > > since if one permits gradual changes, it is still subject to gradually morphing into any other person, and even with > the restriction > > of bodily continuity, our metabolism is constantly churning out old material and replacing it with new material, > (something like half > > the atoms in your brain are replaced every 8 days through metabolism). What if these atoms were collected and used to > construct a new > > version of you, Ship of Theseus style? Which one are you? How do we track bodily continuity when we are each, > effectively rivers > > through which atoms flow? > > In terms of identity, that's why I would think of two anchors, bodily > continuity and mind continuity. > > What about something like an amoeba dividing. Can we say which one the original becomes? I see three possible answers:? Is it possible to generalize across species? After all an amoeba is so different from us biologically speaking that this might be a case that might not transfer. But regardless... > 1. It becomes one of the two > 2.? becomes neither of the two > 3. It becomes both of the two > The answer that to my intuition seems to make the least sense is #1. Maybe #2? As per bodyily continuity, I'd say not #1? > There is also the dimension of location, > to cover the case of id when copied. That would change location from 1x > to 2x, thus somehow "violating" the id, making it a separate one. But > I'll stop for now, because I think you'll get to that below. > > This reminds me of a theory called the closest continuer theory of personal identity. Interesting! Never head of it, but I do like Robert Nozick! Hmm, this seems vaguely familiar: "Let us start with defining a closeness metric among persons. Intuitively, think of it this way: if person y is closer to person x than person y* is, then y is a better candidate than y* to be the same person as x. How close person y is to person x is determined by a complex combination of various factors, including at least the following (p. 69 is helpful here): * psychological similarity: y?s plans, ambitions, desires, preferences, projects, commitments, principles, etc. are qualitatively similar to x?s. * psychological dependence: y?s psychological characteristics ?stem from, grow out of, [or] are causally dependent on? x?s psychological characteristics, in an appropriate way (p. 37). * bodily similarity: y?s body parts (including x?s brain) are qualitatively similar to x?s. * bodily dependence: y?s bodily characteristics stem from, grow out of, or are causally dependent on x?s bodily characteristics, in an appropriate way." (source: https://scholr.harvard.edu/files/sberker/files/phil169-meeting2.pdf) Psychological and bodily factors... I just gave it a glance right now can't say I fully understand it, but it is an interesting concept! In the same pdf, a case: "Case 1: A duplicate of your body, including the brain, is created based on measurements of your own body and brain. Both persons go on living, with qualitatively identical physical and psychological characteristics (at least initially). verdict: You continue to exist, and the duplicate is not you (because the person with the old body has greater bodily continuity than the person with the new body and scores the same with regard to all other factors that make for closeness)." I'm trying to understand if I can drop my idea of locality, or my idea of locality is in fact what's in the pdf in a more thought out and elaborate form. > > "You see, The Object contains the Continuum of Souls. It is a connected set, with a frothy, fractal structure, of > rather high > > dimensionality. The Continuum contains an infinite number of Souls, all Souls in fact, and an infinite number of them > are You. Or at > > I'm sorry, but I think you need to unpack that for me. I have a feeling > that is a quote from a book, so for me, a "continuum of souls" and "connected > set, with a frothy, fractal structure, of rather high dimensionality" > means nothing to me. > > I just mean within an infinite and comprehensive reality, all possible observers exist, and every of all possible variations of thet > observer exist. Thus there is an infinite and continuous spectrum of people out there, with similar nearly identical bodies and > memories, many more like you now than you are like yourself from two weeks ago. On what account then, do we identify our current self > with yourself from two weeks ago, and not with any of these other, much closer (in terms of bodies and minds) to our current self? Ahh ok, so basically the MWI? Well, first of all, I'm still not convinced that MWI is reality. But let's just assume, I'm residing with you on that topic, and let's see what I would think, if I would look at MWI as not only a theory but something close to certainty. In that case, I'd say that a model of consciousness breaks down. It is based on physical beings in a physical world, and the physical world is the boundary for where this concept has any meaning. Without any information transfer between them, I don't see how the infinity of infinities would apply since they are forever "locked away" and will never affect each other. > What does causal history bring to the table? Within one world or many besides the fact that we are beings operating in causal history? > I see the practical appeal, in that it's an easy to apply rule of thumb, but I am not understanding the mechanics or theoretical > basis of it. Well, the basis is common sense reality, but when it comes to the mechanis and theoretical basis that that will lead to I was kind of hoping that your sharp mind would perhaps fill in the details? ;) If not that, at least make it implode. ;) > And moreover, how do we handle personal identity in many-worlds, when every one of our copies in all the many branches share the > history of a continuously changing body and mind? But it's not a joint history, it's history only within its own universe perhaps? Starting out with body and mind continuity, perhaps we need to treat it as a coordinate system? What more axles could be added? ;) > > least, close enough to being You so that nobody could tell the difference. Not even You. > > And the Continuum also contains an infinite number of souls that are almost You. And an infinite number that are sort > of You. And > > because it is a Continuum, and because there is really no objective way to tell which one is really You, then any > method one uses to > > try to distinguish between You and non-You will produce nothing but illusion. In a sense, there is only one You, and it > is Everyone. > > Of course, You can tell which one is you, can?t you? Or can you?" > > -- Douglas Jones in "A Conversation" (1996) > > I'm sorry, it could be the time of night, or it could be my two beers at > the birthday dinner I just came back from, but I do not understand what > Douglas is talking about here. > > > This is a quote from the short story "a conversation: on aliens online", I thought I had linked to it, but if not it is on > http://frombob.to > (It's one of my favorite stories, I highly recommend it). Ah, got it! Goes on the reading list! =) > In the case of a concussion, the body is the same (roughly), and in case > of the mind, there is continuity in that memory, experiences, my daily > flow of events from before and after the interruption are the same. > Coma, the same thing. So I think you make a good point, and when I say > continuity I do not mean being awake or conscious. I believe I am the > same person before and after I wake up from sleeping, and I believe I am > the same before and after fainting. The continuity is one of experience, > identity and memory and body. Neither is interrupted by concussions or > coma. > > My point with these is one is interrupted discontinuously. With the coma, the conscious continues but the body changes (between > points of consciousness), and with the concussion, the body is the same but the consciousnss discontinuously changes (between trying > to catch a football, to say waking in a hospital). I think that perhaps Nozick above has a point? If I take my statement, and try to translate it to Nozicks idea, then body is the same (apart from continuous changes as outlined by the biological organism, that is, no copying has been made etc.) in terms of mind, memory is there, identity etc. so closest continuer? Grasping after my badly defined termed locality, there is also just one body, still remaining there, which adds a point in favour of the same identity. But yes, it is starting to feel like a coordinate system with arbitrarily (or perhaps not?) choosen axles. > However! > > To illustrate the other side of the equation, let's say you are "mind > wiped". We have bodily continuity, but not one of the mind, and in that > case I would say that it is not the same person before and after. > > Let's say the previous 10 memories are wiped (as generally happens in head trauma that causes loss of consciousness), is this, in > your mind, a discontinuous interruption of continuity? If our identity and mind was reduced to only be memories, then I'd say yes. Taking other factors into account (body, experience, identity, other memories, location) and the loss of only 10 memories, then no. > > I don't mean to ask for what purpose or reason we are here, I mean rather: what is the reason you are you, and I am me? > What was > > necessary (physically) for you to be the person you are peering through your eyes? What physical changes might have > interrupted or > > prevented that from happening? What accounts for or explains the fact that you are Daniel (rather than someone else, or > no one)? > > The reason? My parents and my upbriging. But this is not your point. > Could you take your reasoning to the next step, because I feel there is a good > point coming here. > > This is something I believe theories of personal identity must (or should at least try) to answer. > > What had to happen, for you to exist with consciousness. If, for example, a different sperm fertilized the egg, would you be > experiencing life as a your brother or sister, or would you be experiencing nothing at all? > > What if the sperm was only one gene different, causing your eyes to be a different color? Would you be non-existent, or would you > still exist, just with different color eyes? Ok, more clear. Let me then ask, why do you feel like personal identity should be able to answer this question? I'm not certain that the question of personal identity needs to answer those hypotheticals, but I am not ruling it out. > >? ? ? ?But the fact is that you (and I) were. The probability of it is an after > >? ? ? ?construction and also why I am not a fan of philosophical arguments > >? ? ? ?suchas Pascals wager. I think statistics, especially applied in this > >? ? ? ?way, and across ethereal realms leaving our material world, tend to lead > >? ? ? ?us astray. > > > > Not everyone buys the appropriateness of using probability arguments in this way; but I consider it effectively the > same thing as > > Are you serious? I thought I was basically the only one. > > I think it falls under the category of "observer selection bias". It's a big problem in physics and cosmology. You see it mentioned > in experiments that involve the simulation argument, Boltzmann brains, the sleeping beauty problem, the doomsday argument, quantum > suicide, anthropic reasoning, etc. > > Here are some references that might be useful: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Bias_(book) > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument > > In particular look at the criticisms of these ideas and reasoning, who is making them and what they are saying. Thank you Jason. > > Do you have a > link to someone who does not like using probability arguments in this > way? The reason I am asking is that, as you can see, I am not able to > clearly state why I feel the way I do, and perhaps by reading someone > who actually spent a philosophical career thinking about it, my own > position could become a bit more clear. > > Let me know if the above ones are useful and if not perhaps I can find some others. Let me start there, and see where it leads me. > To me, this sounds like the illusion of probability. I can take a smoked > almond from a bowl on my table and drop it on the floor and the > probability of it ending up there, starting from the big bang is > infinitely low. The probability of it ending up on the floor after I > drop it is infinitely high. So depending on my human frame of reference, > my starting point, I can toy with probabilities and make everything seem > like magic. I think, this is also why I do not like statistical > arguments about things which are not even part of our universe. > > You seem to be advocating something like the "Relative Self Sampling Assumption" and rejectibg anything like the Absolute Self > Sampling Assumption, as defined here: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list at googlegroups.com/msg04665.html Well, if I understand these definitions completely, and taking my MWI stance into account, the RSSA might be the closest one amongst those 4. > > What do you make?the ship of Theseus where the old/original planks are secretly gathered and used to reconstruct the > ship in its > > original form? What would you make of applying the same to a person's body, whose old atoms are collected and reformed > into an > > identical copy? > > If you mean a ship of theseus transformation from original to copy to > original, I think that would fit in with my model, since its not a copy, > and since continuity would be preserved. Or maybe I a fooling myself? ;) > > I mean let's say we gather all the exhaled CO2 and excreted urine, and overtime build them up a copy of the body at a previous point > in time where all those atoms were in the original body. We now have two versions of the person, with continuous claims on the > material substrate. In this case, I think the first one is the closest continuer, right? > Another possibility to consider: if you don't like transporters discontinuously swapping matter, what if we run a brain simulation in > a VM, pause the VM, send it's image over the internet to another computer, and unpause the VM image? Has the consciousness > continuously transferred to a new medium and is it the same consciousness as existed before? If you pause the VM, and send the image over, I'd consider it a new VM. If you on the other hand, perform a live migration, and let's assume we can do this with great granularity, I can see how that would map onto continuity. > > Yes, this is actually a theme of the TV show Foundation. Backup clones are kept, and new memories are constantly > synchronized to > > their brains. > > Ah, did that one start again? > > It did. It's airing now. Great! This is added to the watch list! =) > > This does not work if you require bodily continuity as well, as every night when we sleep, atoms are discontinuously > replaced between > > successive moments of consciousness (between when we fall asleep at night and awaken in the morning, our bodies have > changed, food > > has metabolized and become part of our bodies, carbon from our bodies has been exhaled as CO2, etc.). > > But there is continuity in the fact that the bodys processes are not > interrupted, atoms are replaced, but the system is not interrupted. > > What about swapping an atom (a discrete unit) makes it continuous? Is it the fact that it's a small enough change that we don't > notice it? Well, first of all, it is not just the atom, it's the atom of the body, the mind, and the location, so by only focusing on the atom we miss the forest. The second aspect, the way I see it, is the functioning of the body as a biological system, where it follows from the design that it does behave in this way. So in order for us to try and get to a definition, that's why we need to look at more dimensions. Personality seems to be (sorry, could possibly be) a multi-dimensional definition. > Is there a maximum number of atoms we can swap at once without losing the person? If so, what is your guess for how big that number > can be? See above. > With > the mind as well. Might adding locality as nother dimension work? Or > make it more clear? > > I think it makes things less clear. (At least, closest continuer theories make less sense to me). E.g., What if the two copies are > created the same Planck length away from the original? What ig one is closer but is missing an eyelash, or a neuron? It doesn't > provide good justifications to its answers and seems very ad hoc. Yes, it does. I think that you would have to think of locality across a nr of dimensions and not only about locality as a physicist thinks about it. > Hmm, I did not get any attachments. Maybe they were scrubbed by the list > software? Could you send them directly to my email? > > Will do. Thank you very much, got them. > >? ? ? ?> Thanks. Note that this article just introduces the idea, but doesn't really argue for it. I would recommend > Zuboff's > >? ? ? ?linked paper to > >? ? ? ?> see the reasons for believing it. > > > >? ? ? ?Thank you, will keep that in mind, and have a look at the paper. =) > > > > Thank you as well, for your always great questions and for making me have to think. :-) > > Had no idea! And here I thought that you were just drumming up old and > well thought through thoughts, and I was the one who was doing all the > thinking! ;) I find this great for challenging myself and forcing me to > think through what I believe and why I believe it. > > Excellent to hear. That's the main benefit I get from participating in these discussions. To write is to think. Amen to that! =) > The only disadvantage and the one who suffers is my wife who complains > that I write long letters to strangers, and never a long letter to her. ;) > > Aww. Perhaps she should join us on this list. ?? Sadly she is a lawyer and only enjoys very human drama and crime preferably at least 50 years in the past. All technology in her life is happily outsourced to her husband. ;) But I'm currently on a business trip, so this week at least, there won't be any complaints. ;) Best regards, Daniel > > > Jason > > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > ? > > Jason > > > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?The question you are asking about below concerns the topic in philosophy known as personal > >? ? ? ?identity. That > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?topic asks: which I > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?experiences belong to which person's, in other words, how do we define the temporal borders > of a > >? ? ? ?person. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?There are in general three > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?approaches generally taken: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?1. No-self/Anatta/empty individualism: each observer-moment, or thought-moment is its own > isolated > >? ? ? ?thing, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?there's no such thing as a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?self which has multiple distinct thought-moments. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?2. Continuity theories/closed individualism:? either bodily or psychological continuity. A > self is > >? ? ? ?a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?continual things either though > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the continuation of some physical body, or some more abstractly defined psychological > organization. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?3. Universalism/open Individualism: There are no bodily or psychological preconditions for > an > >? ? ? ?experience > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?being yours, all experiences > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?are I, and in truth there is only one mind. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?I think #2 leads to contradictions. #1 and #3 are logically consistent. Between #1 and #3, > #3 is > >? ? ? ?more > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?useful > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(it permits decision > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?theory) and further, there are strong probabilistic arguments for it. For example, those > given in > >? ? ? ?"One > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?self: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the logic of experience" > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?which I cite here: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#10_Open_Individualism_and_the_Afterlife > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?One consequence of Open Individualism is that it dissolves any concern of whether some > particular > >? ? ? ?copy is > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?you, as all conscious > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?perspectives are you. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? My position is that a separate uploaded copy of me is not me, thus would not grant > the > >? ? ? ?physical me > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?immortality. I would > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? look at it as a mind-seed, or something slightly similar to a part of me that lives > on, just > >? ? ? ?as a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?part > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?of me lives on in > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? a child, although actually that part is way more of me, than in a child. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? However, when talking about continuity and uploading, I think the ship of theseus > uploading > >? ? ? ?is much > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?more interesting from > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? an identity point of view. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? As some, or all of you already know, imagine that I'm uploaded neruon by neuron, over > time. I > >? ? ? ?would > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?have a break, and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? my mind would transition onto the new media. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? I would like to know what the people here who do not believe uploading grants a form > of > >? ? ? ?immortality > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?think about that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? scenario? Would it fit in with your idea of identity and would you see yourselves > being > >? ? ? ?"immortal" > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?through a shop of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? theseus procedure if it were possible? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? As for the copy approach, a starting point for me would be that my identity is > probably based > >? ? ? ?on my > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?mind, sense of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? continuity and location. In a copy, continuity and location would go 2x, and thus not > work > >? ? ? ?with the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?definition of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? identity. In a theseus there would be no 2x, both continuity would be perserved, and > location > >? ? ? ?would > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?be > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?single. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? On Sat, 26 Aug 2023, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? On 25/08/2023 20:11, Darin Sunley wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? An important component of what a lot of people want out of immortality is > not so > >? ? ? ?much > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?continuity > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? as it is not-experiencing-discontinuity [And no, they're not the same > thing]. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? If I'm dying of cancer, and you do a brain scan, the resulting upload > will > >? ? ? ?remember being > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?me, but > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /I'm/ still gonna experience a painful death. And no, killing me > painlessly, or > >? ? ? ?even > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? instantaneously, during or in the immediate aftermath of the brain scan > doesn't > >? ? ? ?solve the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?problem > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? either. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? If "me" is ever on two substrates simultaneously, you may have copied me, > but you > >? ? ? ?haven't > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?moved > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? me, and a copy, by definition, isn't the me I want to be immortal. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? So this 'me' that you are talking about, must be something that, when copied, > somehow > >? ? ? ?changes > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?into 'not-me'. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? I don't understand this. If it's an exact copy, how is it not exactly the same? > How can > >? ? ? ?there > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?now be two > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? 'me's? Two identical beings, in every way, including their subjective > experience, with > >? ? ? ?no > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?discontinuity with > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? the original singular being? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? When I hit 'send' on this message, everyone on the list will get a copy, and I > will > >? ? ? ?keep a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?copy. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Which one is > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? the real message? If they were conscious, why would that make any difference? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? You say "you may have copied me, but you haven't moved me". But how do you move > data? > >? ? ? ?You make > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?second copy > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? of it then delete the first copy. So destroying copy 1 when copy 2 is made > would be > >? ? ? ?'moving > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?me', > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?yet you say > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? it wouldn't. Can you clarify why? I can't see (short of a belief in an > uncopyable > >? ? ? ?supernatural > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?'soul') how > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? this could be. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, so I think we > should > >? ? ? ?really > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?understand it, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please explain further? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Could you also please explain the comment about continuity and > not-discontinuity not > >? ? ? ?being the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?same thing? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Ben > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 10:33:19 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 11:33:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) Message-ID: QBism seems to be becoming popular, with more articles appearing. Quote: ?QBism?: quantum mechanics is not a description of objective reality ? it reveals a world of genuine free will By: Ruediger Schack Published: March 29, 2023 Quote: QBism ? A technical discourse Sanjay Basu, PhD May 25, 2023 Unraveling QBism: A Deep Dive into Quantum Bayesianism I asked AI to summarize and explain QBism: QBism, also known as Quantum Bayesianism, is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics that combines elements of subjective probability and Bayesian reasoning. It was developed by physicist Christopher Fuchs and his colleagues in the early 2000s as a response to the long-standing interpretational issues and paradoxes in quantum theory. At its core, QBism asserts that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about an agent's personal beliefs or degrees of belief rather than objective reality. It emphasizes the role of the observer and their subjective experiences in understanding quantum phenomena. According to QBism, the wave function, which describes the state of a quantum system, represents an agent's personal probabilities or expectations for different measurement outcomes. In QBism, probabilities are understood as subjective degrees of belief rather than objective frequencies or propensities. These probabilities are updated using Bayesian inference, a mathematical framework for updating beliefs based on new evidence. The agent's beliefs are represented by a probability distribution over possible measurement outcomes, and this distribution is updated using Bayes' theorem after each measurement. One key aspect of QBism is its rejection of the idea that quantum systems have definite properties before they are measured. Instead, it argues that these properties only exist in relation to an observer's measurements and their subjective beliefs. This view is often referred to as "participatory realism," as it suggests that reality is created through the interaction between the observer and the observed system. Another important concept in QBism is the notion of "quantum states as personalist Bayesian agents." According to this idea, quantum systems can be thought of as agents that update their own beliefs based on their interactions with other systems. This perspective allows for a more intuitive understanding of entanglement and non-locality in quantum mechanics. QBism also addresses the long-standing debate between wave-particle duality and the collapse of the wave function. It suggests that these concepts are not fundamental but rather emerge from an agent's interactions with quantum systems. The wave function is seen as a tool for making predictions about measurement outcomes, rather than a physical entity. Overall, QBism offers a new perspective on the interpretation of quantum mechanics that places the observer and their subjective beliefs at the center of the theory. It provides a framework for understanding quantum phenomena in terms of personal probabilities and Bayesian reasoning, challenging traditional notions of objective reality. ----------------- So, Many Worlds Interpretation is not required with QBism. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 11:20:56 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 04:20:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have been aware of many worlds for a long time. It was a staple of SF for ages. I made an awful joke about it (and because it could be harmful) I didn't write about it for a long time. However, I can't see that my opinion of many worlds or free will has any practical application or that any of this affects or would affect my behavior. Keith On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 3:35?AM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > QBism seems to be becoming popular, with more articles appearing. > > > Quote: > ?QBism?: quantum mechanics is not a description of objective reality ? > it reveals a world of genuine free will By: Ruediger Schack > Published: March 29, 2023 > > > Quote: > QBism ? A technical discourse > Sanjay Basu, PhD May 25, 2023 > Unraveling QBism: A Deep Dive into Quantum Bayesianism > > > I asked AI to summarize and explain QBism: > > QBism, also known as Quantum Bayesianism, is a philosophical > interpretation of quantum mechanics that combines elements of > subjective probability and Bayesian reasoning. It was developed by > physicist Christopher Fuchs and his colleagues in the early 2000s as a > response to the long-standing interpretational issues and paradoxes in > quantum theory. > > At its core, QBism asserts that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > about an agent's personal beliefs or degrees of belief rather than > objective reality. It emphasizes the role of the observer and their > subjective experiences in understanding quantum phenomena. According > to QBism, the wave function, which describes the state of a quantum > system, represents an agent's personal probabilities or expectations > for different measurement outcomes. > > In QBism, probabilities are understood as subjective degrees of belief > rather than objective frequencies or propensities. These probabilities > are updated using Bayesian inference, a mathematical framework for > updating beliefs based on new evidence. The agent's beliefs are > represented by a probability distribution over possible measurement > outcomes, and this distribution is updated using Bayes' theorem after > each measurement. > > One key aspect of QBism is its rejection of the idea that quantum > systems have definite properties before they are measured. Instead, it > argues that these properties only exist in relation to an observer's > measurements and their subjective beliefs. This view is often referred > to as "participatory realism," as it suggests that reality is created > through the interaction between the observer and the observed system. > > Another important concept in QBism is the notion of "quantum states as > personalist Bayesian agents." According to this idea, quantum systems > can be thought of as agents that update their own beliefs based on > their interactions with other systems. This perspective allows for a > more intuitive understanding of entanglement and non-locality in > quantum mechanics. > > QBism also addresses the long-standing debate between wave-particle > duality and the collapse of the wave function. It suggests that these > concepts are not fundamental but rather emerge from an agent's > interactions with quantum systems. The wave function is seen as a tool > for making predictions about measurement outcomes, rather than a > physical entity. > > Overall, QBism offers a new perspective on the interpretation of > quantum mechanics that places the observer and their subjective > beliefs at the center of the theory. It provides a framework for > understanding quantum phenomena in terms of personal probabilities and > Bayesian reasoning, challenging traditional notions of objective > reality. > ----------------- > > > So, Many Worlds Interpretation is not required with QBism. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 14:23:18 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 09:23:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ai Message-ID: I signed up for chatgpt4. Now I learn that it is not connected to the internet. Google Bard is. Does that make Bard a better choice? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 8 14:26:24 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 07:26:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003b01d9e260$7335e530$59a1af90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, 8 September, 2023 7:23 AM To: ExI chat list ; extropolis at googlegroups.com Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] ai >?I signed up for chatgpt4. Now I learn that it is not connected to the internet. Google Bard is. Does that make Bard a better choice? bill w It makes it more current. Bard will likely offer a greater diversity of views, less filtered. I prefer that. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 15:12:56 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 10:12:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 5:35?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > QBism seems to be becoming popular, with more articles appearing. > > < > https://theconversation.com/qbism-quantum-mechanics-is-not-a-description-of-objective-reality-it-reveals-a-world-of-genuine-free-will-200487 > > > Quote: > ?QBism?: quantum mechanics is not a description of objective reality ? > it reveals a world of genuine free will By: Ruediger Schack > Published: March 29, 2023 > > < > https://medium.com/physics-philosophy-more/qbism-a-technical-discourse-34109e2b3c16 > > > Quote: > QBism ? A technical discourse > Sanjay Basu, PhD May 25, 2023 > Unraveling QBism: A Deep Dive into Quantum Bayesianism > > > I asked AI to summarize and explain QBism: > > QBism, also known as Quantum Bayesianism, is a philosophical > interpretation of quantum mechanics that combines elements of > subjective probability and Bayesian reasoning. It was developed by > physicist Christopher Fuchs and his colleagues in the early 2000s as a > response to the long-standing interpretational issues and paradoxes in > quantum theory. > > At its core, QBism asserts that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > about an agent's personal beliefs or degrees of belief rather than > objective reality. It emphasizes the role of the observer and their > subjective experiences in understanding quantum phenomena. According > to QBism, the wave function, which describes the state of a quantum > system, represents an agent's personal probabilities or expectations > for different measurement outcomes. > > In QBism, probabilities are understood as subjective degrees of belief > rather than objective frequencies or propensities. These probabilities > are updated using Bayesian inference, a mathematical framework for > updating beliefs based on new evidence. The agent's beliefs are > represented by a probability distribution over possible measurement > outcomes, and this distribution is updated using Bayes' theorem after > each measurement. > > One key aspect of QBism is its rejection of the idea that quantum > systems have definite properties before they are measured. Instead, it > argues that these properties only exist in relation to an observer's > measurements and their subjective beliefs. This view is often referred > to as "participatory realism," as it suggests that reality is created > through the interaction between the observer and the observed system. > > Another important concept in QBism is the notion of "quantum states as > personalist Bayesian agents." According to this idea, quantum systems > can be thought of as agents that update their own beliefs based on > their interactions with other systems. This perspective allows for a > more intuitive understanding of entanglement and non-locality in > quantum mechanics. > > QBism also addresses the long-standing debate between wave-particle > duality and the collapse of the wave function. It suggests that these > concepts are not fundamental but rather emerge from an agent's > interactions with quantum systems. The wave function is seen as a tool > for making predictions about measurement outcomes, rather than a > physical entity. > One thing I would like QBists to explain, is if there is no outer reality, only my "degrees of belief", then how is it that my "degrees of belief" are able to factor a 1000 digit semiprime, as happens in a quantum computer? Something external to me must be doing this, no? Jason > > Overall, QBism offers a new perspective on the interpretation of > quantum mechanics that places the observer and their subjective > beliefs at the center of the theory. It provides a framework for > understanding quantum phenomena in terms of personal probabilities and > Bayesian reasoning, challenging traditional notions of objective > reality. > ----------------- > > > So, Many Worlds Interpretation is not required with QBism. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 8 15:27:47 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 08:27:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ai In-Reply-To: <003b01d9e260$7335e530$59a1af90$@rainier66.com> References: <003b01d9e260$7335e530$59a1af90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004901d9e269$062df960$1289ec20$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Friday, 8 September, 2023 7:26 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: 'William Flynn Wallace' Subject: RE: [ExI] ai From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, 8 September, 2023 7:23 AM To: ExI chat list >; extropolis at googlegroups.com Cc: William Flynn Wallace > Subject: [ExI] ai >>?I signed up for chatgpt4. Now I learn that it is not connected to the internet. Google Bard is. Does that make Bard a better choice? bill w >?It makes it more current. Bard will likely offer a greater diversity of views, less filtered. I prefer that. spike Billw, that is also the reason why I get my news from TwitterX these days. I don?t want filtered news, I don?t want opinions. I only want those stories which can point directly to a source, not a mainstream news source which may or may not source their stories. I want a source to a video, a document, a photo, some kind of hard evidence of their comments, or even just the link. I don?t need or want interpretations. To me, that is REAL news. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 15:54:55 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 09:54:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] ai In-Reply-To: <004901d9e269$062df960$1289ec20$@rainier66.com> References: <003b01d9e260$7335e530$59a1af90$@rainier66.com> <004901d9e269$062df960$1289ec20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: To hear tell, Bard is significantly behind the other major LLMs of the GPT3.5 generation when it comes to fluency, accuracy, and just general intelligence. A lot of people have high hopes for Google's forthcoming "Gemini" upgrade though. On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:29?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > *Sent:* Friday, 8 September, 2023 7:26 AM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Cc:* 'William Flynn Wallace' > *Subject:* RE: [ExI] ai > > > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Sent:* Friday, 8 September, 2023 7:23 AM > *To:* ExI chat list ; > extropolis at googlegroups.com > *Cc:* William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] ai > > > > >>?I signed up for chatgpt4. Now I learn that it is not connected to the > internet. Google Bard is. > > > > Does that make Bard a better choice? bill w > > > > > > > > > > >?It makes it more current. Bard will likely offer a greater diversity of > views, less filtered. I prefer that. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > Billw, that is also the reason why I get my news from TwitterX these > days. I don?t want filtered news, I don?t want opinions. I only want > those stories which can point directly to a source, not a mainstream news > source which may or may not source their stories. I want a source to a > video, a document, a photo, some kind of hard evidence of their comments, > or even just the link. I don?t need or want interpretations. To me, that > is REAL news. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 15:55:05 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 16:55:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 16:15, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > One thing I would like QBists to explain, is if there is no outer reality, only my "degrees of belief", then how is it that my "degrees of belief" are able to factor a 1000 digit semiprime, as happens in a quantum computer? Something external to me must be doing this, no? > > Jason > _______________________________________________ Well, I am not a quantum theory expert. :) Just an interested reader. But the technical article I referenced earlier says -- A) QBism is still a work-in-progress (like most quantum theories) so perfection should not be expected. :) and B) In QBism, any observer, whether conscious or not, can update their beliefs upon making a measurement. There is no need for a special role of consciousness in the measurement process. -------- I asked for an explanation of B) and AI said -- To understand why this statement is important, let's first consider the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that the act of measurement causes the wave function to collapse. In this view, the observer plays a fundamental role in the collapse of the wave function, as their consciousness is what brings about the collapse. However, this raises questions about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. Qbism, on the other hand, offers a different perspective on the role of the observer in quantum mechanics. According to Qbism, the act of observation itself, rather than the consciousness of the observer, is what collapses the wave function. This means that the observer does not need to be conscious in order to bring about the collapse of the wave function. Instead, it is the act of observation, regardless of whether or not the observer is conscious, that is what matters. -------------- To me, that reads as though we should expect the quantum computer to act as the observer in your example. BillK From dsunley at gmail.com Fri Sep 8 16:16:55 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 10:16:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem with these approaches is that interpretations of QM get massively confused when you imagine the universe as a ginormous wave function plus one or more "observers" that are an entirely different kind of thing. Per hypothesis, the universe is not a ginormous wave function plus n observers. It's just wave function all the way down. Observers aren't actual things that exist. The entire point of many-worlds is that observers are just factors within the wave function, like every other observable subset of the universe. "Observation" occurs when any identifiable factor of the wave function interacts with any other factor of the wave function. Maybe it's just the summary, but QBism kinda sounds like dualism with extra steps. If you want to postulate the existence of souls/observers that are ontologically different from the rest of the observable universe, just bite the bullet and go full theist. It's a longstanding and time-honored ontology, and has significant advantages in terms of internal consistency, even if it runs unfashionably counter to the spirit of the age. On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:57?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 16:15, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > One thing I would like QBists to explain, is if there is no outer > reality, only my "degrees of belief", then how is it that my "degrees of > belief" are able to factor a 1000 digit semiprime, as happens in a quantum > computer? Something external to me must be doing this, no? > > > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > Well, I am not a quantum theory expert. :) Just an interested reader. > But the technical article I referenced earlier says -- > A) QBism is still a work-in-progress (like most quantum theories) so > perfection should not be expected. :) > and > B) In QBism, any observer, whether conscious or not, can update their > beliefs upon making a measurement. There is no need for a special role > of consciousness in the measurement process. > -------- > > I asked for an explanation of B) and AI said -- > > To understand why this statement is important, let's first consider > the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that > the act of measurement causes the wave function to collapse. In this > view, the observer plays a fundamental role in the collapse of the > wave function, as their consciousness is what brings about the > collapse. However, this raises questions about the nature of > consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. > > Qbism, on the other hand, offers a different perspective on the role > of the observer in quantum mechanics. According to Qbism, the act of > observation itself, rather than the consciousness of the observer, is > what collapses the wave function. This means that the observer does > not need to be conscious in order to bring about the collapse of the > wave function. Instead, it is the act of observation, regardless of > whether or not the observer is conscious, that is what matters. > -------------- > > To me, that reads as though we should expect the quantum computer to > act as the observer in your example. > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 8 20:31:47 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 22:31:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3bafe95a-6ff3-c841-d22f-dc57f965b826@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, On Fri, 8 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > One thing I would like QBists to explain, is if there is no outer reality, only my "degrees of belief", then how is it that my > "degrees of belief" are able to factor a 1000 digit semiprime, as happens in a quantum computer? Something external to me must be > doing this, no? That's easy! We are all gods, or part of god. Problem solved! ;) Best regards, Daniel > > Jason > > ? > > Overall, QBism offers a new perspective on the interpretation of > quantum mechanics that places the observer and their subjective > beliefs at the center of the theory. It provides a framework for > understanding quantum phenomena in terms of personal probabilities and > Bayesian reasoning, challenging traditional notions of objective > reality. > ----------------- > > > So, Many Worlds Interpretation is not required with QBism. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 9 12:40:58 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 07:40:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] AI and college admission tests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I took the New Yorker for many years. It always had several poems. Increasingly they were odd and obscure. I found out later that it was intentional. For some reason the poet just didn't want clarity. For my money, the poem the ai sent John, is a model of clarity and sense. Not only that - it represents thinking outside the box. Why not just give the asker what he asks for - a song? Nope. It did something better. All of which is to say - I am impressed. bill w On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 6:13?AM John Clark wrote: > I was reading about how colleges are upset because they suspect potential > students are using AI to help them on their admission essays, but what > appalled me was that one of the essays requested by Princeton, one of the > best universities in the country, was to write a short essay about *"Which > song should be used as the soundtrack for your life?*" So if I was 18 and > trying to get into Princeton I'd ask GPT-4 to write a poem (I figured > Princeton would like poems) about why that was a very dumb question and the > university should be ashamed of itself for asking it. I'm not 18 but I > asked GPT-4 anyway and in less than two seconds I got this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > *This question is often asked,But it?s not an easy task.For life is a > symphony,With many notes and harmony.It?s not just one song,That can > represent your lifelong.It?s a collection of melodies,That make up your > memories.So, don?t be fooled by this query,It?s not a question to be taken > seriously.For life is too complex to be defined,* > > *By just one song that comes to mind.* > > > John K Clark > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "extropolis" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv2cFY_z1aWd8jf8mGwcNvuhO%2Bc-2EEo-werBYmJXvpd4Q%40mail.gmail.com > > . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sat Sep 9 16:07:11 2023 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2023 09:07:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9533e034abdee40fc253457548516b40@sollegro.com> On 2023-09-08 03:33, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > I asked AI to summarize and explain QBism: > > QBism, also known as Quantum Bayesianism, is a philosophical > interpretation of quantum mechanics that combines elements of > subjective probability and Bayesian reasoning. It was developed by > physicist Christopher Fuchs and his colleagues in the early 2000s as a > response to the long-standing interpretational issues and paradoxes in > quantum theory. There are no paradoxes that I am aware of in MWI. All the physics-breaking paradoxes stem from collapse-based theories. MWI is Lorentz-invariant and conforms to both special and general relativity. No collapse theory can claim that. MWI, like special relativity, works whether there is an observer in a particular inertial reference frame or not. > At its core, QBism asserts that quantum mechanics is fundamentally > about an agent's personal beliefs or degrees of belief rather than > objective reality. It emphasizes the role of the observer and their > subjective experiences in understanding quantum phenomena. According > to QBism, the wave function, which describes the state of a quantum > system, represents an agent's personal probabilities or expectations > for different measurement outcomes. At the molecular-level, biological evolution is a quantum phenomenon. Probabilistic quantum wavefunctions dictate whether a photon of ionizing radiation will strike one particular nucleotide in DNA and mutate it instead of another as well as where the breakpoints for recombination/repair will occur, and numerous other mechanisms of genetic variation. As such, this suggests that in order for the FIRST life-form to have evolved, there needed to be an observer watching it. This is tantamount to simulation theory, intelligent design, or creationism which all require an explanation as to where the programmer, creator, or initial observer came from. There are only two possibilities that answer the question, "Where did God come from?" The first is that He is infinite and always existed beyond space and time. The second is that he is a finite being running a simulation of sorts and was himself created or "observed" into existence by a superior being living in a larger, more fundamental reality. But, if that is the case, then where did this uberGott in basal reality come from? The answer to this can logically only be either an infinite supreme god or an infinite series of nested finite gods that have created successive gods all the way down. Like matryoshka dolls that go on forever. But therein lies the rub, because whichever you choose, you must admit the metaphysical existence of INFINITY. And infinity is all you ever really needed in the first place. God, all gods, become superfluous once you accept multiverse theory, because within the universal wave function all gods exist somewhere. That is to say that there are likely Everett branches out there where some observers for whom wavefunction collapse does occur to save RAM and CPU cycles. > > In QBism, probabilities are understood as subjective degrees of belief > rather than objective frequencies or propensities. These probabilities > are updated using Bayesian inference, a mathematical framework for > updating beliefs based on new evidence. The agent's beliefs are > represented by a probability distribution over possible measurement > outcomes, and this distribution is updated using Bayes' theorem after > each measurement. All probabilities, or just quantum ones? After a coin flip, does "tails" exist when you are observing "heads"? Many worlds says everything that can happen, must happen somewhere. That is quantum unitarity. Counterfactual observables are observed by someone somewhere. > One key aspect of QBism is its rejection of the idea that quantum > systems have definite properties before they are measured. Instead, it > argues that these properties only exist in relation to an observer's > measurements and their subjective beliefs. This view is often referred > to as "participatory realism," as it suggests that reality is created > through the interaction between the observer and the observed system. Participatory realism is isomorphic to living in a videogame or simulation where computational resources are saved by rendering reality only as needed to serve the player or observer. > Another important concept in QBism is the notion of "quantum states as > personalist Bayesian agents." According to this idea, quantum systems > can be thought of as agents that update their own beliefs based on > their interactions with other systems. This perspective allows for a > more intuitive understanding of entanglement and non-locality in > quantum mechanics. So electrons have beliefs in QBism? Are photons watching us into existence? Do muons have souls? QBism is starting to sound like good old-fashioned animism. > > QBism also addresses the long-standing debate between wave-particle > duality and the collapse of the wave function. It suggests that these > concepts are not fundamental but rather emerge from an agent's > interactions with quantum systems. The wave function is seen as a tool > for making predictions about measurement outcomes, rather than a > physical entity. The wavefunction cannot be observed, yet it nonetheless necessarily exists. That makes it more than a merely physical entity, but instead a metaphysical entity. This means that MWI is the first experimentally tested and mathematically rigorous metaphysical theory in existence and Hugh Everett was the first true metaphysicist. > Overall, QBism offers a new perspective on the interpretation of > quantum mechanics that places the observer and their subjective > beliefs at the center of the theory. It provides a framework for > understanding quantum phenomena in terms of personal probabilities and > Bayesian reasoning, challenging traditional notions of objective > reality. Yes. It is also violates the Copernican principle, general relativity, and is equivalent to intelligent design. > So, Many Worlds Interpretation is not required with QBism. > BillK Yes, MWI is not required with QBism, but because it is more general, MWI allows for QBism. In fact, it would predict that there are many universes out there where simulations are in operation and wavefunction collapse and QBism are the descriptor of the wavefunction in those simulations. It is not so much that one must choose between either finite turtles all the way down or the infinite multiverse. But that even if it is turtles all the way down, the turtle on the bottom is standing on an Everett branch. Stuart LaForge From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 10:28:35 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:28:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Smartphones to get generative AI next year Message-ID: New smartphones to get generative AI capabilities next year Facebook owner Meta?s AI chatbot technology could run on new handsets from Samsung and OnePlus AI run on smartphones will need much less energy than cloud-based systems By Saqib Shah 24 August 2023 Quotes: Mediatek revealed on Wednesday that it will release a next-generation chip that harnesses Meta?s generative AI system, known as Llama 2. Qualcomm announced a similar partnership with the social media giant in July. Meta isn?t the only company working on bringing generative AI to smartphones. Google recently declared that it managed to run a lightweight version of PaLM 2, its latest large language model, on mobile devices. -------------- That will be a big leap forward when your friendly AI is running on a smartphone. Like having an always-present advisor saying 'Don't do that, you are being silly!'. :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 10:49:44 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:49:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Da Vinci robot surgeon successfully removes inoperable tumor Message-ID: Doctors couldn't operate on my tumour, but this robot did ? and it may have saved my life Glenn Deir ? CBC News ? Aug 27, 2023 Quotes: Given removing the cancer involved delicate cutting of the tonsil, tongue and throat, Dr. Lee offered to refer me to a surgeon in Halifax who used a robot named da Vinci. There is no da Vinci in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's an expensive piece of equipment. Halifax's cost just over $8 million. Da Vinci's "fingers" can go where the human hand cannot. The surgery is less invasive, the complications fewer, the recovery quicker. But da Vinci is not R2-D2. It does not act autonomously. It does what its master directs, and in my case its master was Dr. Martin Corsten. When I asked Dr. Corsten what the surgery would have looked like without da Vinci he replied, "In the good old days, we would have cut your jaw in two." That's how they got their access. The image of my jaw being split like a turkey wishbone was deeply unsettling. Radiation treatment has made even a simple tooth extraction impossible. The jaw won't heal properly. Without da Vinci, I had no surgical option. I have thanked all my doctors profusely. But I reserve a special thank-you for da Vinci. --------------------- Amazing technology! BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 13:00:58 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 09:00:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Da Vinci robot surgeon successfully removes inoperable tumor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This video gives a great picture of its capabilities: https://youtu.be/KNHgeykDXFw?si=6tZ2wk6Hd0sSE2Cq Jason On Sun, Sep 10, 2023, 6:51 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Doctors couldn't operate on my tumour, but this robot did ? and it may > have saved my life > Glenn Deir ? CBC News ? Aug 27, 2023 > > < > https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/first-person-robot-surgeon-1.6946399 > > > > Quotes: > Given removing the cancer involved delicate cutting of the tonsil, > tongue and throat, Dr. Lee offered to refer me to a surgeon in Halifax > who used a robot named da Vinci. There is no da Vinci in Newfoundland > and Labrador. It's an expensive piece of equipment. Halifax's cost > just over $8 million. > > Da Vinci's "fingers" can go where the human hand cannot. The surgery > is less invasive, the complications fewer, the recovery quicker. But > da Vinci is not R2-D2. It does not act autonomously. It does what its > master directs, and in my case its master was Dr. Martin Corsten. > > When I asked Dr. Corsten what the surgery would have looked like > without da Vinci he replied, "In the good old days, we would have cut > your jaw in two." That's how they got their access. The image of my > jaw being split like a turkey wishbone was deeply unsettling. > Radiation treatment has made even a simple tooth extraction > impossible. The jaw won't heal properly. Without da Vinci, I had no > surgical option. > I have thanked all my doctors profusely. But I reserve a special > thank-you for da Vinci. > --------------------- > > Amazing technology! > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 10 22:08:29 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 17:08:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day Message-ID: Why would anyone, especially older people, ever put somethings on their feet called slippers? billw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Sep 10 22:24:10 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 15:24:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] pun of the day >?Why would anyone, especially older people, ever put somethings on their feet called slippers? Billw Ja, while they are hoping to postpone the day when they need to use their hands to carry a walker. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Mon Sep 11 18:50:10 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:50:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> What did the conquistador take to improve his health? (answer below) Colonial silver! ;) Best regards, Daniel On Sun, 10 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > > ? > > > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] pun of the day > > ? > > >?Why would anyone, especially older people, ever put somethings on their feet called slippers? > > ? > > Billw > > ? > > ? > > Ja, while they are hoping to postpone the day when they need to use their hands to carry a walker. > > ? > > spike > > ? > > ? > > ? > > > From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 11 20:34:02 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:34:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 19:52, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > What did the conquistador take to improve his health? > Colonial silver! ;) > Best regards, Daniel >_______________________________________________ Out of interest I asked the Pi AI to explain this joke. -------------- Pi replied - ?? But seriously, it was a great joke. It was a play on words - "colonial" and "colon" are both pronounced the same way. So taking "colonial silver" sounds like taking "colon silver," which would be something taken to improve health. Get it? ?? ---------------- To me that demonstrates an AI with considerable language intelligence. These AIs are advancing worryingly fast! BillK From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 12 17:13:42 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Well, what I was thinking about was actually colloidal silver, but I'm happy the AI liked it. ;) My wife said "Ah, looks like you final found an audience for your jokes" so I think I'll get to know Pi AI a bit more. ;) Best regards, Daniel On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 19:52, efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> What did the conquistador take to improve his health? >> Colonial silver! ;) >> Best regards, Daniel >> _______________________________________________ > > > Out of interest I asked the Pi AI to explain this joke. > -------------- > Pi replied - > ?? But seriously, it was a great joke. It was a play on words - > "colonial" and "colon" are both pronounced the same way. So taking > "colonial silver" sounds like taking "colon silver," which would be > something taken to improve health. Get it? ?? > ---------------- > > To me that demonstrates an AI with considerable language intelligence. > These AIs are advancing worryingly fast! > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 19:09:25 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:09:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 18:16, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > Well, what I was thinking about was actually colloidal silver, but I'm > happy the AI liked it. ;) > > My wife said "Ah, looks like you final found an audience for your jokes" > so I think I'll get to know Pi AI a bit more. ;) > > Best regards, Daniel >_______________________________________________ OK. Let's try asking Pi again. ------------ Me: Can you explain the joke - What did the conquistador take to improve his health? Colonial silver! ;) Pi: Absolutely! ?? Conquistadors were Spanish explorers and adventurers, who were also often colonizers. So in the joke, you said that a conquistador takes "colonial silver" to improve his health. The joke is playing on the word "colonial" as referring to the colonies, and "colonial silver" being a sort of funny term for a metal that can improve health. So the joke is basically a play on words, with the word colonial being a double entendre. I hope that helps! ?? Me: Maybe he intended to refer to colloidal silver? Pi: Ooh, that's a good point! The homonym "colonial" and "colloidal" makes the joke even better. Cleverly disguised wordplay there. ?? You seem to be pretty good at puns yourself. Do you tell lots of jokes? ?? -------------- It sounds like you and Pi will get along well together! :) BillK From atymes at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 19:16:59 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:16:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Message-ID: That conquistador later turned pirate, and found himself in need of a hook. Where did he get it? The second hand store. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 19:42:01 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:42:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 20:19, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > That conquistador later turned pirate, and found himself in need of a hook. Where did he get it? > The second hand store. > _______________________________________________ Pi replied: You're on a roll! ?? That's some impressive joke telling! ?? I have to say, the mix of history and puns is great. Keep 'em coming, you're really entertaining me. ?? ------------------ Pi is designed to be a compassionate and supportive companion that offers ?conversations, friendly advice, and concise information in a natural, flowing style.? I think it is trying to be a friendly companion, much like a personal therapist. Most of the other AIs are trying to be intellectual giants, 'know-it-alls'. The variety of AIs means that you will get different types of responses from each AI. You have to be selective, depending on what you want to talk about and what questions you want to ask. It will be wonderful to see these artificial children of humanity progress. BillK From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 12 20:51:46 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 22:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <48d7a463-e0d6-b867-22d1-928b8f54c1cd@swisscows.email> Brilliant! Best regards, Daniel On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > That conquistador later turned pirate, and found himself in need of a hook.? Where did he get it? > > > > The second hand store.? > > From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 12 20:52:44 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 22:52:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Message-ID: You bet! They can hire me to train him and he will reach new heights of fun (or should I say pun?)! ;) Best regards, Daniel On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 18:16, efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> Well, what I was thinking about was actually colloidal silver, but I'm >> happy the AI liked it. ;) >> >> My wife said "Ah, looks like you final found an audience for your jokes" >> so I think I'll get to know Pi AI a bit more. ;) >> >> Best regards, Daniel >> _______________________________________________ > > > OK. Let's try asking Pi again. > ------------ > Me: > Can you explain the joke - > What did the conquistador take to improve his health? Colonial silver! ;) > > Pi: > Absolutely! ?? Conquistadors were Spanish explorers and adventurers, > who were also often colonizers. So in the joke, you said that a > conquistador takes "colonial silver" to improve his health. The joke > is playing on the word "colonial" as referring to the colonies, and > "colonial silver" being a sort of funny term for a metal that can > improve health. So the joke is basically a play on words, with the > word colonial being a double entendre. I hope that helps! ?? > > Me: > Maybe he intended to refer to colloidal silver? > > Pi: > Ooh, that's a good point! The homonym "colonial" and "colloidal" makes > the joke even better. Cleverly disguised wordplay there. ?? You seem > to be pretty good at puns yourself. Do you tell lots of jokes? ?? > -------------- > > It sounds like you and Pi will get along well together! :) > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 12 21:54:33 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 23:54:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> Good evening Jason, On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?That is quite a big "if" in my world. > > > > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we have for it. I have put together a list of > confirming evidence > > here: > > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence > > Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any > verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and > I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to > test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm > or deny them. > > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a theory which we can verify with our senses or observations > (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus). > > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our > confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation would falsify the theory. > > Agree so far? Yes. > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information > theory: > > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in time > > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't > probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described. > > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of > gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that inverse square law of gravitational attraction. > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not empirical. Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this world. There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will change its mind, and so would I. I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;) > I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are > theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit > experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof. > > Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd > rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump > in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some > writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. > > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal > places). Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them. As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that they are currently anything else but theories. > >? ? ? ?Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is right. > > > > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a trillion odds) > > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations? > > No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an > extremely lucky guy. ;) > > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: > > 1. You are very lucky > 2. The game is rigged > > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. > > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in your assessment? Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick apart the game. > >? ? ? ?Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death do not > >? ? ? ?have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no information > >? ? ? ?travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read (religious > >? ? ? ?relatives aside). > > > > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities?of things occurring outside this world? > > Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude > contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof > related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert > landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of > interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this > world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and > philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage, > but that does not mean I believe in them. > > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural > prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind because you are agnostic on a theory of > consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information? Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and the outcome related to acting or not acting. When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to criticize myself. > >? ? ? ?Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this is the > >? ? ? ?nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most likely > >? ? ? ?forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize it 100%. > > > > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer running some program for which we don't know whether > or not it > > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical problem how much power this computer will ultimately > draw. But this > > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and there will always remain problems for which > currently known > > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs. > > I agree. > > > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand > the scope of > > questions that are answerable. > > I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, > developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at > the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to > theories which cannot be proven. > > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the theory of gravity or evolution. I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way, way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom. > They are an important tool, they can > serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and > will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. > > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where > nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some theories are far more likely to be correct than > others. What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)? I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it. As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others (pink unicorns). > >? ? ? ?Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in our > >? ? ? ?world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are > >? ? ? ?concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can do to > >? ? ? ?escape their medium of existence by themselves. > > > > You are defining their existence in terms of their material construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and > say any > > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and the material substrate is unimportant) then > external simulation > > I do, since we live in a material universe. > > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far, then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I exist, and that we do live in a material universe. But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything, including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so I think I'll refrain from going there. ;) > Therefore I do not think it > makes sense to relax this constraint. > > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) > Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) > Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that > in our other thread about ID and consciousness. > > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my opinion. Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory. > > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes > entirely > > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or can happen in this universe? > > I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns > and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical > concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. > > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. > > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It transcends us, and any attempt to define it. > > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical > system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, where does truth come from, if not us or > our axiomatic systems? When something corresponds with a state in the world? I'm no expert, but I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the concept is meaningless. > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: > > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own > creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they can?t have any others except those he has > given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least something in them) exist > objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of Platonism > or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not convinced by his line of reasoning. > Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness. > It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that > individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I > do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. Very true. ;) Best regards, Daniel > > Jason? > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason? > > > > > > > >? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?Daniel > > > > > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?> ? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > > >? ? ? ?wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Hello Stuart, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? edge physics. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? You say that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are > already > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?immortal. You > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?don't need to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not infinite > numbers of, > >? ? ? ?you > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?strewn about > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? multiverse. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by > proof or > >? ? ? ?is itone > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of many > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?interpretations of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? current theories? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability > there's > >? ? ? ?only > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?one > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?universe > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(with one kind of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?This is as close to proof as anything science can provide. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Best regards, Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Stuart LaForge > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, > so I > >? ? ? ?think we > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?should > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?really > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please > explain > >? ? ? ?further? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Could you also please explain the comment about continuity and > >? ? ? ?not-discontinuity > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?being > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same thing? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ben > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 12 22:31:46 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:31:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 20:19, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > That conquistador later turned pirate, and found himself in need of a hook. Where did he get it? > The second hand store. > _______________________________________________ After that, he gave up the pirate business and went to college as a marketing major. It was much more difficult than he thought, and he had to work his ass off. But he found a way to succeed. How? spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 12 22:54:04 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:54:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Tuesday, 12 September, 2023 3:32 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] pun of the day ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 20:19, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > That conquistador later turned pirate, and found himself in need of a hook. Where did he get it? > The second hand store. > _______________________________________________ >...After that, he gave up the pirate business and went to college as a marketing major. It was much more difficult than he thought, and he had to work his ass off. But he found a way to succeed. How? spike He went to the local retailer. From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 23:55:52 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:55:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 5:55 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening Jason, > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > That is quite a big "if" in my world. > > > > > > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence > we have for it. I have put together a list of > > confirming evidence > > > here: > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence > > > > Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any > > verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out > theories, and > > I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which > to > > test them by making predictions and performing experiments which > confirm > > or deny them. > > > > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a > theory which we can verify with our senses or observations > > (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus). > > > > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but > each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our > > confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero > chance the observation would falsify the theory. > > > > Agree so far? > > Yes. > > > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a > priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information > > theory: > > > > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws > > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature > > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning > in time > > > > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe > with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't > > probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described. > > > > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms > these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of > > gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence > supporting that inverse square law of gravitational attraction. > > > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not > empirical. > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, What I am saying is we can confirm it by looking at properties of our own universe. It's like this: 1. A theory predicts two things: A and B 2. We observe A, thereby finding some observational confirmation of this theory. In this case, "A" is the universe being quantum mechanical. It didn't have to be. And it is quite strange and unexpected that the universe should be quantum mechanical. No other theory we know of can explain why the universe should be quantum mechanical. We have looked at the universe and found it to be quantum mechanical. Therefore we have some confidence (from observational evidence) that this theory is true. Now this theory also predicts B, which is the prediction of infinite other universes beyond this one. We are stuck in the universe and so our inability to observe these other universes is not evidence of their absence. We thus have neither observationally confirmed nor refuted the prediction of B. Our confidence in the theory is unperturbed. Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%. Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%. I do not see how they can ever be proven. > How do we know earth isn't hollow, or that the big bang happened? Noone has ever been in a position to see these things. Our confidence in these facts is indirect and based on theory. Do you not accept them for that reason? Or if you are confident in these facts, on what basis? It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that > by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, > its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by > definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this > world. > Our inability to observe God does not make us powerless to apply theory and rationality to discover properties of God. For example, you might use an observation of something in this universe, say the existence of evil, to reason that if God exists he is either unwilling or unable to prevent that evil from existing in this universe. It is similar with multiverse theories. We can look at aspects of things within our own universe and reason about what theories could explain the properties or aspects we observe of or in our universe. It just happens that the simplest (and perhaps only?) theory that can explain why our universe is quantum mechanical is an infinite ensemble theory. > There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that > difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather > uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see > how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will > change its mind, and so would I. > Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without assuming the reality of the wave function and it's superposed states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in any branch can observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse. > I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will > change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the > finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;) > > > I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others > are > > theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit > > experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical > proof. > > > > Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and > I'd > > rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than > "jump > > in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on > some > > writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. > > > > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most > accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal > > places). > > Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, > superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories > that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are > still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them. > Many worlds is QM. QM is many worlds. MW is not an interpretation because it is strictly the idea that the universe always follows the laws of QM without exception. To say MW is an interpretation of QM would be like saying the belief that the universe always follows general relativity is an interpretation of general relativity. On the other hand, CI is not QM, it says the universe stops obeying QM at certain times under certain conditions (wave function collapse), and so it is straight-forwardly a rejection of QM. It's not an interpretation of QM, it's an altogether different theory. > As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to > be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that > they are currently anything else but theories. > > > > Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that > MWI is right. > > > > > > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? > (1 in a trillion odds) > > > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was > true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations? > > > > No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an > > extremely lucky guy. ;) > > > > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: > > > > 1. You are very lucky > > 2. The game is rigged > > > > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. > > > > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, > in your assessment? > > Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does > increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick > apart the game. > Well we can never prove anything. But I'm willing to bet that when the second tower was hit on 9/11 you concluded that you had observed an intentional act rather than two accidents. We use probability in our reasoning like this all the time in our everyday lives. Quantum suicide just asks you to apply that same kind of reasoning. > > > > Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after > my death do not > > > have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no > information > > > travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read > (religious > > > relatives aside). > > > > > > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things > occurring outside this world? > > > > Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude > > contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical > proof > > related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer > desert > > landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of > > interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating > this > > world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and > > philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to > engage, > > but that does not mean I believe in them. > > > > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If > in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural > > prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse > to make up your mind because you are agnostic on a theory of > > consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information? > > Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me > remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and > the outcome related to acting or not acting. > > When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable > being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength > in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to > criticize myself. > Good point. > > > Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that > this is the > > > nature of the question. Physics and science will by design > most likely > > > forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never > realize it 100%. > > > > > > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a > computer running some program for which we don't know whether > > or not it > > > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical > problem how much power this computer will ultimately > > draw. But this > > > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, > and there will always remain problems for which > > currently known > > > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some > programs. > > > > I agree. > > > > > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not > attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand > > the scope of > > > questions that are answerable. > > > > I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, > > developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. > But, at > > the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too > much to > > theories which cannot be proven. > > > > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the > theory of gravity or evolution. > > I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way, > way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to > committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on > results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom. > Not unreasonable. > > They are an important tool, they can > > serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, > and > > will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. > > > > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be > obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where > > nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I > still think some theories are far more likely to be correct than > > others. > > What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing > proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)? > It's a good question. Since I believe there is only one mind then in a certain sense I do believe I am arguing with myself. Regardless, I find such discussion a fruitful exercise, whoever you may be. Since I also believe in an infinite and comprehensive reality, there is further not one version of you, but an infinite number (and from my limited perspective) there are many distinct possibilities that remain compatible with everything I presently know. (You could be someone outside this simulation, an alien, a delusion, or exactly who you say ??). You are in fact all of these, in varying fractions across the multiverse, just as I have analogous existences as all of these possibilities to you from your perspective. > I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it. > > As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others > (pink unicorns). > What basis do you use to compare the relative likelihood of two theories for which we have no observational evidence? Is it innate complexity of the theory? (I.e. do you use the heuristic of simplicity when you judge theories?) If so, what is the basis of this? > > > Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the > simulation in our > > > world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual > machine are > > > concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing > they can do to > > > escape their medium of existence by themselves. > > > > > > You are defining their existence in terms of their material > construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and > > say any > > > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious > (and the material substrate is unimportant) then > > external simulation > > > > I do, since we live in a material universe. > > > > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? > > Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far, > then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic > reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I > exist, and that we do live in a material universe. > But everything you know is compatible with our existence in idealism (including all our assumed observations of matter). Further, physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave. We have two metaphysical theories: Materialism and Idealism How do you decide between them, without using metaphysics, reasoning, etc. (When observational evidence doesn't work). You either have to be agnostic on materialism/idealism, or you must accept that whatever methods you use to decide between them, are applicable to questions like do other universes exist. It would be inconsistent, I think to use metaphysics to answer one question but say metaphysics is invalid when I deciding the other question. > But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything, > including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we > end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so > I think I'll refrain from going there. ;) > > > Therefore I do not think it > > makes sense to relax this constraint. > > > > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, > (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) > > Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. > > I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other > discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some > sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position > that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around > mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) > Glad to hear it. > > Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back > to that > > in our other thread about ID and consciousness. > > > > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my > opinion. > > Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory. > > > > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior > angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes > > entirely > > > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what > happens or can happen in this universe? > > > > I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by > patterns > > and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe > mathematical > > concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. > > > > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. > > > > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It > transcends us, and any attempt to define it. > > > > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not > the source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical > > system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove > without system. So then, where does truth come from, if not us or > > our axiomatic systems? > > When something corresponds with a state in the world? Do the digits of Pi go on forever,? This is a mathematical truth without correspondence to any physical fact of our finite universe of 10^120 bits. So if Pi has digits that go on forever, they can't have any physical correspondence, and they cannot exist in our universe. Whe e then, do they know exist? I'm no expert, but > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we > interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the > concept is meaningless. > There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this universe. This follows from the fact that there are systems of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable universe. Just consider something simple, like the factors of zero. Are there an infinite number of them? No person can comprehend them all of them, which suggests a finite number of factors. So then, how many factors does zero have (if the truth of a number being a factor of of zero requires human processing)? > > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: > > > > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, > seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own > > creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his > creatures, because they can?t have any others except those he has > > given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical > objects and facts (or at least something in them) exist > > objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is > to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of Platonism > > or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." > > Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the > creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not > convinced by his line of reasoning. > He's not, in my interpretation, speaking of God here, but anything created or invented. Think of an author of nonfiction story and the properties of the characters in his story, for example. But notably, this isn't the case with mathematics. Even if a human creates some definition or description of numbers, it cannot be used to represent or determine everything true about the numbers. The numbers then (he reasons) cannot be our creations. > > Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique > redness. > > It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that > > individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, > and I > > do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) > > > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. > > Very true. ;) > Coincidentally there was a blue moon the day I wrote that. ?? Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch > via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 26, > 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Stuart, > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a quick question > from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting > > > > > > edge physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say that > > > > > > > > > > > > that a copy of > you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are > > already > > > > immortal. You > > > > > > don't need to > > > > > > copy yourself > because there are already plenty of, if not infinite > > numbers of, > > > you > > > > strewn about > > > > > > the > > > > > > multiverse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I wonder is, are > infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by > > proof or > > > is itone > > > > of many > > > > > > interpretations of > > > > > > current theories? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthropic considerations > provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability > > there's > > > only > > > > one > > > > > universe > > > > > > (with one kind of > > > > > > physics) is on the order of > 1 in 10^122. > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > > > > > > > > > > > > This is as close to proof as > anything science can provide. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a > crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, > > so I > > > think we > > > > should > > > > > > really > > > > > > understand > it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please > > explain > > > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you > also please explain the comment about continuity and > > > not-discontinuity > > > > not > > > > > being > > > > > > the > > > > > > same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > extropy-chat > mailing list > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing > list > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Sep 12 23:05:00 2023 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 23:05:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why We Haven't Gone Back to the Moon Message-ID: Amy Shira Teitel does a good job in explaining space topics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyPIRheeOig Terry . . . From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 17:34:07 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 12:34:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. Jason First, if by 'confirm' you mean true, then you have left statistics and gone into metaphysics. Second - 'prove' means 'to test', so both 'prove true' and 'prove false' are possibilities Third - if you have some theories that lead to accurate predictions given margins of error it doesn't matter if the reliability is not perfect (since it never will be). Is it true? Who knows. It works. I remember one chemistry teacher telling me that he ran a student lab test reaction three times and got three different results, all of which were different from what the lab text said. bill w On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:56?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening Jason, > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > That is quite a big "if" in my world. > > > > > > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence > we have for it. I have put together a list of > > confirming evidence > > > here: > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence > > > > Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any > > verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out > theories, and > > I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which > to > > test them by making predictions and performing experiments which > confirm > > or deny them. > > > > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a > theory which we can verify with our senses or observations > > (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus). > > > > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but > each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our > > confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero > chance the observation would falsify the theory. > > > > Agree so far? > > Yes. > > > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a > priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information > > theory: > > > > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws > > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature > > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning > in time > > > > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe > with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't > > probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described. > > > > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms > these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of > > gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence > supporting that inverse square law of gravitational attraction. > > > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not > empirical. > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. > It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that > by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, > its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by > definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this > world. > > There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that > difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather > uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see > how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will > change its mind, and so would I. > > I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will > change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the > finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;) > > > I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others > are > > theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit > > experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical > proof. > > > > Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and > I'd > > rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than > "jump > > in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on > some > > writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. > > > > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most > accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal > > places). > > Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, > superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories > that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are > still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them. > > As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to > be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that > they are currently anything else but theories. > > > > Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that > MWI is right. > > > > > > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? > (1 in a trillion odds) > > > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was > true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations? > > > > No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an > > extremely lucky guy. ;) > > > > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: > > > > 1. You are very lucky > > 2. The game is rigged > > > > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. > > > > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, > in your assessment? > > Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does > increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick > apart the game. > > > > Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after > my death do not > > > have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no > information > > > travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read > (religious > > > relatives aside). > > > > > > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things > occurring outside this world? > > > > Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude > > contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical > proof > > related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer > desert > > landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of > > interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating > this > > world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and > > philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to > engage, > > but that does not mean I believe in them. > > > > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If > in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural > > prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse > to make up your mind because you are agnostic on a theory of > > consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information? > > Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me > remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and > the outcome related to acting or not acting. > > When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable > being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength > in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to > criticize myself. > > > > Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that > this is the > > > nature of the question. Physics and science will by design > most likely > > > forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never > realize it 100%. > > > > > > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a > computer running some program for which we don't know whether > > or not it > > > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical > problem how much power this computer will ultimately > > draw. But this > > > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, > and there will always remain problems for which > > currently known > > > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some > programs. > > > > I agree. > > > > > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not > attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand > > the scope of > > > questions that are answerable. > > > > I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, > > developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. > But, at > > the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too > much to > > theories which cannot be proven. > > > > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the > theory of gravity or evolution. > > I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way, > way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to > committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on > results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom. > > > They are an important tool, they can > > serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, > and > > will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. > > > > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be > obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where > > nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I > still think some theories are far more likely to be correct than > > others. > > What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing > proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)? > > I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it. > > As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others > (pink unicorns). > > > > Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the > simulation in our > > > world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual > machine are > > > concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing > they can do to > > > escape their medium of existence by themselves. > > > > > > You are defining their existence in terms of their material > construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and > > say any > > > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious > (and the material substrate is unimportant) then > > external simulation > > > > I do, since we live in a material universe. > > > > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? > > Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far, > then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic > reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I > exist, and that we do live in a material universe. > > But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything, > including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we > end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so > I think I'll refrain from going there. ;) > > > Therefore I do not think it > > makes sense to relax this constraint. > > > > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, > (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) > > Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. > > I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other > discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some > sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position > that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around > mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) > > > Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back > to that > > in our other thread about ID and consciousness. > > > > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my > opinion. > > Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory. > > > > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior > angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes > > entirely > > > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what > happens or can happen in this universe? > > > > I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by > patterns > > and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe > mathematical > > concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. > > > > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. > > > > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It > transcends us, and any attempt to define it. > > > > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not > the source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical > > system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove > without system. So then, where does truth come from, if not us or > > our axiomatic systems? > > When something corresponds with a state in the world? I'm no expert, but > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we > interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the > concept is meaningless. > > > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: > > > > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, > seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own > > creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his > creatures, because they can?t have any others except those he has > > given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical > objects and facts (or at least something in them) exist > > objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is > to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of Platonism > > or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." > > Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the > creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not > convinced by his line of reasoning. > > > Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique > redness. > > It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that > > individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, > and I > > do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) > > > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. > > Very true. ;) > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch > via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 26, > 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Stuart, > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a quick question > from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting > > > > > > edge physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > You say that > > > > > > > > > > > > that a copy of > you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are > > already > > > > immortal. You > > > > > > don't need to > > > > > > copy yourself > because there are already plenty of, if not infinite > > numbers of, > > > you > > > > strewn about > > > > > > the > > > > > > multiverse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I wonder is, are > infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by > > proof or > > > is itone > > > > of many > > > > > > interpretations of > > > > > > current theories? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthropic considerations > provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability > > there's > > > only > > > > one > > > > > universe > > > > > > (with one kind of > > > > > > physics) is on the order of > 1 in 10^122. > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > > > > > > > > > > > > This is as close to proof as > anything science can provide. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a > crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, > > so I > > > think we > > > > should > > > > > > really > > > > > > understand > it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please > > explain > > > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you > also please explain the comment about continuity and > > > not-discontinuity > > > > not > > > > > being > > > > > > the > > > > > > same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > extropy-chat > mailing list > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing > list > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 18:57:21 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 13:57:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <4b9f2c79-b214-7340-386e-127162ac71f3@zaiboc.net> <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:35?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. > Jason > Just a note of clarification: the text you quoted was written by "efc / Daniel", not me. > First, if by 'confirm' you mean true, then you have left statistics and > gone into metaphysics. Second - 'prove' means 'to test', so both 'prove > true' and 'prove false' are possibilities > Third - if you have some theories that lead to accurate predictions given > margins of error it doesn't matter if the reliability is not perfect (since > it never will be). Is it true? Who knows. It works. > > I remember one chemistry teacher telling me that he ran a student lab test > reaction three times and got three different results, all of which were > different from what the lab text said. bill w > Reminds me of this joke: https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck/mathphyseng.html A mathematician, physicist, and engineer are taking a math test. One question asks "Are all odd numbers prime?" The mathematician thinks, "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- nope, not all odd numbers are prime." The physicist thinks, " 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- that could be experimental error -- 11 is prime, 13 is prime, yes, they're all prime." The engineer thinks, " 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime, ..." Jason > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:56?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Good evening Jason, >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > > That is quite a big "if" in my world. >> > > >> > > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the >> evidence we have for it. I have put together a list of >> > confirming evidence >> > > here: >> > > >> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence >> > >> > Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any >> > verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out >> theories, and >> > I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in >> which to >> > test them by making predictions and performing experiments which >> confirm >> > or deny them. >> > >> > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a >> theory which we can verify with our senses or observations >> > (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus). >> > >> > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but >> each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our >> > confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero >> chance the observation would falsify the theory. >> > >> > Agree so far? >> >> Yes. >> >> > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a >> priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information >> > theory: >> > >> > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws >> > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature >> > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning >> in time >> > >> > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe >> with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't >> > probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described. >> > >> > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms >> these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of >> > gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence >> supporting that inverse square law of gravitational attraction. >> > >> > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are >> not empirical. >> >> Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this >> life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. >> It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that >> by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, >> its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by >> definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this >> world. >> >> There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that >> difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather >> uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see >> how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will >> change its mind, and so would I. >> >> I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will >> change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the >> finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;) >> >> > I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others >> are >> > theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit >> > experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical >> proof. >> > >> > Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, >> and I'd >> > rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than >> "jump >> > in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based >> on some >> > writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. >> > >> > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most >> accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal >> > places). >> >> Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, >> superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories >> that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are >> still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them. >> >> As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to >> be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that >> they are currently anything else but theories. >> >> > > Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that >> MWI is right. >> > > >> > > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? >> (1 in a trillion odds) >> > > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was >> true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations? >> > >> > No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an >> > extremely lucky guy. ;) >> > >> > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: >> > >> > 1. You are very lucky >> > 2. The game is rigged >> > >> > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. >> > >> > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, >> in your assessment? >> >> Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does >> increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick >> apart the game. >> >> > > Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after >> my death do not >> > > have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no >> information >> > > travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read >> (religious >> > > relatives aside). >> > > >> > > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things >> occurring outside this world? >> > >> > Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude >> > contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical >> proof >> > related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer >> desert >> > landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of >> > interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating >> this >> > world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and >> > philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to >> engage, >> > but that does not mean I believe in them. >> > >> > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. >> If in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural >> > prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse >> to make up your mind because you are agnostic on a theory of >> > consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available >> information? >> >> Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me >> remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and >> the outcome related to acting or not acting. >> >> When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable >> being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength >> in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to >> criticize myself. >> >> > > Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, >> that this is the >> > > nature of the question. Physics and science will by >> design most likely >> > > forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never >> realize it 100%. >> > > >> > > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a >> computer running some program for which we don't know whether >> > or not it >> > > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a >> physical problem how much power this computer will ultimately >> > draw. But this >> > > physical question may not be answerable under known >> mathematics, and there will always remain problems for which >> > currently known >> > > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some >> programs. >> > >> > I agree. >> > >> > > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not >> attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand >> > the scope of >> > > questions that are answerable. >> > >> > I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, >> > developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. >> But, at >> > the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too >> much to >> > theories which cannot be proven. >> > >> > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the >> theory of gravity or evolution. >> >> I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way, >> way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to >> committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on >> results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom. >> >> > They are an important tool, they can >> > serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they >> are, and >> > will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. >> > >> > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be >> obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where >> > nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I >> still think some theories are far more likely to be correct than >> > others. >> >> What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing >> proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)? >> >> I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it. >> >> As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others >> (pink unicorns). >> >> > > Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the >> simulation in our >> > > world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual >> machine are >> > > concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing >> they can do to >> > > escape their medium of existence by themselves. >> > > >> > > You are defining their existence in terms of their material >> construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and >> > say any >> > > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their >> conscious (and the material substrate is unimportant) then >> > external simulation >> > >> > I do, since we live in a material universe. >> > >> > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? >> >> Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far, >> then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic >> reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I >> exist, and that we do live in a material universe. >> >> But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything, >> including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we >> end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so >> I think I'll refrain from going there. ;) >> >> > Therefore I do not think it >> > makes sense to relax this constraint. >> > >> > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, >> (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) >> > Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. >> >> I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other >> discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some >> sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position >> that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around >> mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) >> >> > Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back >> to that >> > in our other thread about ID and consciousness. >> > >> > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my >> opinion. >> >> Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory. >> >> > > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior >> angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes >> > entirely >> > > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what >> happens or can happen in this universe? >> > >> > I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by >> patterns >> > and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe >> mathematical >> > concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. >> > >> > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. >> > >> > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It >> transcends us, and any attempt to define it. >> > >> > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not >> the source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical >> > system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove >> without system. So then, where does truth come from, if not us or >> > our axiomatic systems? >> >> When something corresponds with a state in the world? I'm no expert, but >> I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we >> interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the >> concept is meaningless. >> >> > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: >> > >> > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, >> seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own >> > creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his >> creatures, because they can?t have any others except those he has >> > given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical >> objects and facts (or at least something in them) exist >> > objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is >> to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of Platonism >> > or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." >> >> Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the >> creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not >> convinced by his line of reasoning. >> >> > Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique >> redness. >> > It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that >> > individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, >> and I >> > do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) >> > >> > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on >> anything. >> >> Very true. ;) >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Jason >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Daniel >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Jason >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > Daniel >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Jason >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch >> via extropy-chat wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Saturday, August 26, >> 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > Hello Stuart, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Just a quick question >> from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting >> > > > > > edge physics. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > You say that >> > > > > > >> > > > > > that a copy of >> you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are >> > already >> > > > immortal. You >> > > > > > don't need to >> > > > > > copy yourself >> because there are already plenty of, if not infinite >> > numbers of, >> > > you >> > > > strewn about >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > multiverse. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What I wonder is, are >> infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by >> > proof or >> > > is itone >> > > > of many >> > > > > > interpretations of >> > > > > > current theories? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Anthropic considerations >> provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability >> > there's >> > > only >> > > > one >> > > > > universe >> > > > > > (with one kind of >> > > > > > physics) is on the order of >> 1 in 10^122. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is as close to proof >> as anything science can provide. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Jason >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, Daniel >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Stuart LaForge >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is a >> crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, >> > so I >> > > think we >> > > > should >> > > > > > really >> > > > > > >> understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please >> > explain >> > > further? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Could you >> also please explain the comment about continuity and >> > > not-discontinuity >> > > > not >> > > > > being >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > same >> thing? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ben >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > >> extropy-chat mailing list >> > > > > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > extropy-chat >> mailing list >> > > > > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > extropy-chat mailing >> list >> > > > > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> >_______________________________________________ >> > > > > extropy-chat mailing list >> > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > > extropy-chat mailing list >> > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > extropy-chat mailing list >> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > >> > > >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 14:04:16 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:04:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day Message-ID: 'Hey, what are those scruffy looking power company workers doing out there? Fixing storm damage?' 'They are revolting.' bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Sep 14 14:08:13 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 07:08:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004001d9e714$e7403fd0$b5c0bf70$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Thursday, 14 September, 2023 7:04 AM To: ExI chat list ; extropolis at googlegroups.com Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] pun of the day 'Hey, what are those scruffy looking power company workers doing out there? Fixing storm damage?' 'They are revolting.' bill w Billw, they are hoping to amplify their company?s product in term of the current situation. sike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 14 17:06:06 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:06:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not empirical. > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, > > What I am saying is we can confirm it by looking at properties of our own universe. It's like this: > > 1. A theory predicts two things: A and B > 2. We observe A, thereby finding some observational confirmation of this theory. > > In this case, "A" is the universe being quantum mechanical. It didn't have to be. And it is quite strange and unexpected that the > universe should be quantum mechanical. No other theory we know of can explain why the universe should be quantum mechanical. Yes, so far, so good. I'm not debating (or at least that was not my intention) QM here. I'm debating interpretations of qm which in some cases I think go too far, and in my opinion, some interpretations are unscientific and can never be proved, other we _might_ be able to prove, but actually doing so, lies far, far ahead in the future. > We have looked at the universe and found it to be quantum mechanical. Therefore we have some confidence (from observational evidence) > that this theory is true. > > Now this theory also predicts B, which is the prediction of infinite other universes beyond this one. We are stuck in the universe > and so our inability to observe these other universes is not evidence of their absence. We thus have neither observationally > confirmed nor refuted the prediction of B. Our confidence in the theory is unperturbed. That's one interpretation among many, and not without its critique and claims that it cannot be proven etc. Just adding that, but yes, MWI is the theory that you find most probable, so let's focus on that one. I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, it is up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do not find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to metaphysical chaos. > Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%. > Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%. Well, I think that's the problem here. Your confidence is 95%, my confidence is not. And since there is no proof either way, and since there are many competing theories, it currently remains a theory and the confidence varies wildly depending on who you ask. It seems to me, that every theory has his highly educated and intelligent champion and all are equally good at arguing their point to me as a non-physicist with limited math skills. But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is performed, that brings final evidence for MWI, that would be filtered through experts, replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then shoot up to close to 100%. > I do not see how they can ever be proven. > > How do we know earth isn't hollow, or that the big bang happened?? Noone has ever been in a position to see these things. Our > confidence in these facts is indirect and based on theory. Do you not accept them for that reason? Or if you are confident in these > facts, on what basis? >From a philosophical point of view, you are correct of course, and we all end up in solipsism if everything is doubted. When it comes to what makes me believe in bigbang or gravity with a high degree of confidence rather than the MWI, I'll lean on the consensus of the scientific community, since I am not a scientist, and yes, shame on me for doing that. ;) It is sad that science has become so specialized that that is a necessary shortcut for non-scientists. I'll pay the price of being late to the party, and I think that is a price worth paying. > It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that > by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, > its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by > definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this > world. > > Our inability to observe God does not make us powerless to apply theory and rationality to discover properties of God. For example, > you might use an observation of something in this universe, say the existence of evil, to reason that if God exists he is either > unwilling or unable to prevent that evil from existing in this universe. But that is an empty or nonsensical term if you talk with someone who does not believe in god. It only amounts to language games. Not to any knowledge about the world. You can say infinite amounts of statements about god, but at the end of the day, they will yield nothing. Of course, within the constraints of the god language game, I can play along and we can discuss proof of god. But in my opinion, this is not worth while. I think Karl Jaspers expresses my opinion quite well: "The truth, as against all supposed proofs and refuta? tions of the existence of God, seems to be this: The so- called proofs of the existence of God are funda? mentally no proofs at all, but methods of achieving certainty through thought. All the proofs of the exist? ence of God and their variants that have been devised through the centuries differ essentially from scientific proofs. They are attempts to express the experience of man?s ascent to God in terms of thought. There are roads of thought by which we come to limits at which the consciousness of God suddenly becomes a natural presence." (Karl Jaspers, Way to Wisdom) I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable. > It is similar with multiverse theories. We can look at aspects of things within our own universe and reason about what theories could > explain the properties or aspects we observe of or in our universe. It just happens that the simplest (and perhaps only?) theory that > can explain why our universe is quantum mechanical is an infinite ensemble theory. > > There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that > difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather > uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see > how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will > change its mind, and so would I. > > Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without assuming the reality of the wave function and it's superposed > states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in any branch can > observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse. Well, based on what I have read, this is not settled. There are many explanations and theories of which MWI is one. > Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, > superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories > that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are > still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them. > > Many worlds is QM. QM is many worlds. MW is not an interpretation because it is strictly the idea that the universe always follows > the laws of QM without exception. > > To say MW is an interpretation of QM would be like saying the belief that the universe always follows general relativity is an > interpretation of general relativity. > > On the other hand, CI is not QM, it says the universe stops obeying QM at certain times under certain conditions (wave function > collapse), and so it is straight-forwardly a rejection of QM. It's not an interpretation of QM, it's an altogether different theory. Ok, then we have a misunderstanding here. My understanding of quantum mechanics is based on what we've discussed here, along with various web sites and wikipedia. On wikipedia, under quantum mechanies, I find the following interpretations: Bayesian Consistent histories Copenhagen de Broglie?Bohm Ensemble Hidden-variable Local Many-worlds Objective collapse Quantum logic Relational Transactional of which MWI is one, and that it is far from settled which one of these is the correct one. But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past each other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =) > Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does > increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick > apart the game. > > Well we can never prove anything. But I'm willing to bet that when the second tower was hit on 9/11 you concluded that you had > observed an intentional act rather than two accidents. We use probability in our reasoning like this all the time in our everyday > lives. Quantum suicide just asks you to apply that same kind of reasoning. What is the suicide rate among MWI proponents? As for using statistics beyond this world, I think we already touched on that a few emails back. > What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing > proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)? > > It's a good question. Since I believe there is only one mind then in a certain sense I do believe I am arguing with myself. > Regardless, I find such discussion a fruitful exercise, whoever you may be. That's a nice way of thinking about it. Rest assured, I have not forgotten the Arnold Zuboff paper! > Since I also believe in an infinite and comprehensive reality, there is further not one version of you, but an infinite number (and > from my limited perspective) there are many distinct possibilities that remain compatible with everything I presently know. (You > could be someone outside this simulation, an alien, a delusion, or exactly who you say ??). You are in fact all of these, in varying > fractions across the multiverse, just as I have analogous existences as all of these possibilities to you from your perspective. Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very consistent! =) > I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it. > > As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others > (pink unicorns). > > What basis do you use to compare the relative likelihood of two theories for which we have no observational evidence? Is it innate > complexity of the theory? (I.e. do you use the heuristic of simplicity when you judge theories?) If so, what is the basis of this? Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) If I briefly analyze myself with the option of god and a pink unicorn, I'd say that god wins due to how comprehensive the theory is, and how well it would "fit" with the world as it is, over a pink unicorn, which seems to be something chose in jest and very arbitrary. ;) > Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far, > then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic > reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I > exist, and that we do live in a material universe. > > But everything you know is compatible with our existence in idealism (including all our assumed observations of matter). Further, > physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave. But we can never know what anything "is" except our own consciousness. I think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world. > We have two metaphysical theories: > Materialism and Idealism? > How do you decide between them, without using metaphysics, reasoning, etc. (When observational evidence doesn't work). > > You either have to be agnostic on materialism/idealism, or you must accept that whatever methods you use to decide between them, are > applicable to questions like do other universes exist. It would be inconsistent, I think to use metaphysics to answer one question > but say metaphysics is invalid when I deciding the other question. Yes, philosophically we can doubt everything and nothing is certain, including the possible illusion of us experiencing anything. But absolute doubt refutes itself. On pragmatic grounds, as in, science works, does gives us "power" over the physical world, allows us to predict events in the physical world, to me, provides evidence of a materialist position. And _yes_, I do give you that no one can be sure about anything, but since that is a dead end, I do find the pragmatic way, and the simple idea of material instead of material + ideal to be the way forward. But no, I am not 100% sure of that. And yes, based on what we've discussed so far, do not see how anything about MWI could _currently_ move it from a theory to something which would fit well in with our current ways of predicting events. As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known and when he or they can be used to make testable predictions. > I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other > discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some > sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position > that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around > mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) > > Glad to hear it. > > Do the digits of Pi go on forever,? > > This is a mathematical truth without correspondence to any physical fact of our finite universe of 10^120 bits. > > So if Pi has digits that go on forever, they can't have any physical correspondence, and they cannot exist in our universe. Whe e > then, do they know exist? Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols. > I'm no expert, but > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we > interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the > concept is meaningless. > > There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this universe. This follows from the fact that there are systems > of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable universe. See my previous reply. > Just consider something simple, like the factors of zero. Are there an infinite number of them? No person can comprehend them all of > them, which suggests a finite number of factors. So then, how many factors does zero have (if the truth of a number being a factor of > of zero requires human processing)? See above, pi example. > >? ? ? ?Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness. > >? ? ? ?It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that > >? ? ? ?individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I > >? ? ? ?do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) > > > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. > > Very true. ;) > > Coincidentally there was a blue moon the day I wrote that. ?? Yes, I remember thinking that when I read this message the first time, but then I forgot. ;) Shame on me for taking on too much work at the moment, which in turn, makes me take way too long to respond to emails. Best regards, Daniel > > Jason? > > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason? > > > > > >? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?Daniel > > > > > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > >? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Hello Stuart, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? edge physics. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? You say that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because > you are > >? ? ? ?already > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?immortal. You > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?don't need to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not > infinite > >? ? ? ?numbers of, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?you > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?strewn about > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? multiverse. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses > supported by > >? ? ? ?proof or > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?is itone > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of many > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?interpretations of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? current theories? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the > probability > >? ? ? ?there's > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?only > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?one > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?universe > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(with one kind of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?This is as close to proof as anything science can provide. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Best regards, Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Stuart LaForge > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in > uploading, > >? ? ? ?so I > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?think we > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?should > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?really > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you > please > >? ? ? ?explain > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?further? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Could you also please explain the comment about > continuity and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not-discontinuity > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?being > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same thing? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ben > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 17:22:57 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:22:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) Message-ID: I thought it would be useful to get a summary of the MWI objections, so I asked around in the AI members club. All the responses were fairly similar, so I have copied the answer I liked best below. One AI did add the caution : It is worth noting that alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation or the pilot-wave theory, have their own merits and drawbacks. The choice between interpretations often hinges on personal preference, philosophical considerations, and the specific problem being addressed. ---------- I interpret that as saying that as yet quantum mechanics still has many theoretical difficulties. :) BillK ------------------------------- MWI Criticism Summary The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics that was proposed by physicist Hugh Everett III in 1957. It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement actually occurs in a separate universe, resulting in a branching or splitting of reality. While the MWI has gained some popularity among physicists, it also faces significant criticism and challenges from various perspectives. One of the main criticisms of the MWI is its lack of testability and falsifiability. Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. This lack of empirical evidence raises concerns about the scientific validity of the MWI as it deviates from the traditional scientific method. Another criticism revolves around the issue of probability. In the MWI, probabilities are assigned to different outcomes based on their relative frequency across all possible universes. However, this approach raises questions about how probabilities can be meaningfully defined when there are an infinite number of universes. Critics argue that without a clear framework for assigning probabilities, the MWI fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena. Furthermore, the MWI faces challenges in explaining macroscopic observations and classical behavior. While it may be able to account for quantum phenomena at the microscopic level, it struggles to explain why we observe a classical world with definite outcomes rather than a superposition of possibilities. Critics argue that the MWI fails to provide a convincing mechanism for the emergence of classical behavior from quantum principles. Additionally, some critics question the philosophical implications of the MWI. The theory suggests that every possible outcome exists in a separate universe, leading to an infinite number of parallel realities. This idea raises philosophical concerns about personal identity and consciousness. Critics argue that it is difficult to reconcile our subjective experience with the notion that there are countless versions of ourselves in different universes. Moreover, the MWI has been criticized for its complexity and lack of simplicity. Occam's razor, a principle in science that favors simpler explanations over more complex ones, is often invoked against the MWI. Critics argue that the theory introduces unnecessary complexity by postulating the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, without providing a clear justification for such a hypothesis. In conclusion, while the Many Worlds Interpretation has gained attention and support from some physicists, it also faces significant criticism. The lack of testability and falsifiability, challenges in defining probabilities, difficulties in explaining macroscopic observations, philosophical implications, and complexity concerns are among the main criticisms raised against the MWI. ------------------------------------- From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 19:35:34 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:35:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:07?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hello Jason, > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section > are not empirical. > > > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in > this > > life or this world, confirm, > > > > What I am saying is we can confirm it by looking at properties of our > own universe. It's like this: > > > > 1. A theory predicts two things: A and B > > 2. We observe A, thereby finding some observational confirmation of this > theory. > > > > In this case, "A" is the universe being quantum mechanical. It didn't > have to be. And it is quite strange and unexpected that the > > universe should be quantum mechanical. No other theory we know of can > explain why the universe should be quantum mechanical. > > Yes, so far, so good. I'm not debating (or at least that was not my > intention) QM here. I'm debating interpretations of qm which in some > cases I think go too far, and in my opinion, some interpretations are > unscientific and can never be proved, other we _might_ be able to prove, > but actually doing so, lies far, far ahead in the future. > Note: I am not discussing QM as a theory here. I am discussing a theory that *predicts QM*. (I know this is confusing given the other discussions of interpretations of QM below, but this has nothing to do with QM as a theory, this has to do with a more general underlying ensemble theory, which can predict and account for why the universe happens to be quantum mechanical in the first place. QM cannot do this.) > > > We have looked at the universe and found it to be quantum mechanical. > Therefore we have some confidence (from observational evidence) > > that this theory is true. > > > > Now this theory also predicts B, which is the prediction of infinite > other universes beyond this one. We are stuck in the universe > > and so our inability to observe these other universes is not evidence of > their absence. We thus have neither observationally > > confirmed nor refuted the prediction of B. Our confidence in the theory > is unperturbed. > > That's one interpretation among many, and not without its critique and > claims that it cannot be proven etc. Just adding that, but yes, MWI is > the theory that you find most probable, so let's focus on that one. > I am not talking about QM. I am talking about the work of Russell Standish, Markus P. Muller, and Bruno Marchal, all of which have used ensemble-type theories to predict aspects of quantum mechanics as traits we should expect to observe of our universe, if the ensemble theory is true. For example, please see Appendix D of this book: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf on page 217 where he derives the Shrodinger equation from first principles. This the point I am making, I am not talking about QM or its interpretations here, but rather *the more fundamental theory* that explains/predicts/accounts for QM. When you understand I am talking about this more fundamental theory, then you will see my point regarding how we can have observational evidence that supports the conclusion of a reality beyond this one. > > I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, it is > up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do not > find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable > intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to > metaphysical chaos. > Of course. I agree observation evidence is crucial. My point is that we have it, that is, we have observed our universe to obey the Shrodinger equation, and this is evidence for *the more fundamental theory* which predicts a universe governed by the Shrodinger equation. > > > Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%. > > Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%. > > Well, I think that's the problem here. Your confidence is 95%, my > confidence is not. This is just an example. In any case, nothing prevents us from performing the same objective Bayesian calculation and arriving at the same result. > And since there is no proof either way, and since > there are many competing theories, it currently remains a theory and the > confidence varies wildly depending on who you ask. You can work backwards to find the different assumptions people are using to arrive upon different estimates of confidence. These aren't unsolvable problems. > It seems to me, that > every theory has his highly educated and intelligent champion and all > are equally good at arguing their point to me as a non-physicist with > limited math skills. > That is perhaps the most important lesson of all. Some of the smartest people in the world often disagree, which implies the smartest people in the world are often wrong. > > But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is performed, that > brings final evidence for MWI, that would be filtered through experts, > replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then shoot up > to close to 100%. > I think you would still have to wait for the CI adherents to die off, as Planck suggested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle As it is, I think the existence of working quantum computers already constitutes such proof for MW. Bell's experiment too, is proof of MW, if you believe special relativity is true and nothing travels faster than light. > > > I do not see how they can ever be proven. > > > > How do we know earth isn't hollow, or that the big bang happened? Noone > has ever been in a position to see these things. Our > > confidence in these facts is indirect and based on theory. Do you not > accept them for that reason? Or if you are confident in these > > facts, on what basis? > > From a philosophical point of view, you are correct of course, and we > all end up in solipsism if everything is doubted. When it comes to what > makes me believe in bigbang or gravity with a high degree of confidence > rather than the MWI, I'll lean on the consensus of the scientific > community, since I am not a scientist, and yes, shame on me for doing > that. ;) It is sad that science has become so specialized that that is a > necessary shortcut for non-scientists. I'll pay the price of being late > to the party, and I think that is a price worth paying. > It is good to acknowledge this. So then, do I take it that your objection to MW is not that we cannot see them, but that there is not yet a consensus of scientists that accepts them? > > > It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, > that > > by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any > way, > > its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, > by > > definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside > this > > world. > > > > Our inability to observe God does not make us powerless to apply theory > and rationality to discover properties of God. For example, > > you might use an observation of something in this universe, say the > existence of evil, to reason that if God exists he is either > > unwilling or unable to prevent that evil from existing in this universe. > > But that is an empty or nonsensical term if you talk with someone who does > not believe in god. It only amounts to language games. What's the difference, in your view, between math, logic, reason, philosophy, and language games? Or do you see them as all equivalent? > Not to any > knowledge about the world. You can say infinite amounts of statements > about god, but at the end of the day, they will yield nothing. > I disagree. We can reason about the valid properties of objects whose existence we are uncertain of. For example, we don't know if there are odd "perfect numbers ", but we can say much about the properties such numbers must have, should they exist. I think theology is such a science. We can reason, for example, about whether omnipotence or omniscience are mutually consistent properties to have, or even whether they are individually consistent with themselves. If we find them to not be consistent, then we can form a statement like "If omniscience is inconsistent, then if God exists, God is not omniscient." > > Of course, within the constraints of the god language game, I can play > along and we can discuss proof of god. But in my opinion, this is not > worth while. > > I think Karl Jaspers expresses my opinion quite well: > > "The truth, as against all supposed proofs and refuta? > tions of the existence of God, seems to be this: The so- > called proofs of the existence of God are funda? > mentally no proofs at all, but methods of achieving > certainty through thought. All the proofs of the exist? > ence of God and their variants that have been devised > through the centuries differ essentially from scientific > proofs. They are attempts to express the experience of > man?s ascent to God in terms of thought. There are > roads of thought by which we come to limits at which > the consciousness of God suddenly becomes a natural > presence." (Karl Jaspers, Way to Wisdom) > I think there is rational evidence of God*. (* For some definitions of God) For example, see these sections from my articles: - https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts - https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife - https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God > > I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually > express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable. > That is quite possible. But one almost must be careful to avoid relying on agnosticism as a crutch and thereby close off one's mind to the possibility such evidence could exist. > > > It is similar with multiverse theories. We can look at aspects of things > within our own universe and reason about what theories could > > explain the properties or aspects we observe of or in our universe. It > just happens that the simplest (and perhaps only?) theory that > > can explain why our universe is quantum mechanical is an infinite > ensemble theory. > > > > There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that > > difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does > gather > > uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do > not see > > how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community > will > > change its mind, and so would I. > > > > Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without > assuming the reality of the wave function and it's superposed > > states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts > as something beyond our universe (as no one in any branch can > > observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse. > > Well, based on what I have read, this is not settled. There are many > explanations and theories of which MWI is one. > You say that, but if you are aware of any that account for operational quantum computers, neither I, nor David Deutch are aware of any. From: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/02/dream-machine Deutsch is mainly interested in the building of a quantum computer for its implications for fundamental physics, including the Many Worlds Interpretation, which would be a victory for the argument that science can explain the world and that, consequently, reality is knowable. (?House cures people,? Deutsch said to me when discussing Hugh Laurie, ?because he?s interested in solving problems, not because he?s interested in people.?) Shor?s algorithm excites Deutsch, but here is how his excitement comes through in his book ?The Fabric of Reality?: To those who still cling to a single-universe world-view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor?s algorithm works. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor?s algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources than can be seen to be present, where was the number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minuscule number compared with 10^500. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed? Deutsch believes that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound. He is nearly alone in this conviction, though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation. ?Once there are actual quantum computers,? Deutsch said to me, ?and a journalist can go to the actual labs and ask how does that actual machine work, the physicists in question will then either talk some obfuscatory nonsense, or will explain it in terms of parallel universes. Which will be newsworthy. Many Worlds will then become part of our culture. Really, it has nothing to do with making the computers. But psychologically it has everything to do with making them.? You might point to people who shy away from this challenge/question, but you won't find anyone advocating or reasoning from a position of one of these other interpretations *explaining* quantum computers/Shor's algorithm working, which was experimentally done back in 2001: https://www.nature.com/articles/414883a > > > Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, > > superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are > theories > > that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are > > still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of > them. > > > > Many worlds is QM. QM is many worlds. MW is not an interpretation > because it is strictly the idea that the universe always follows > > the laws of QM without exception. > > > > To say MW is an interpretation of QM would be like saying the belief > that the universe always follows general relativity is an > > interpretation of general relativity. > > > > On the other hand, CI is not QM, it says the universe stops obeying QM > at certain times under certain conditions (wave function > > collapse), and so it is straight-forwardly a rejection of QM. It's not > an interpretation of QM, it's an altogether different theory. > > Ok, then we have a misunderstanding here. My understanding of quantum > mechanics is based on what we've discussed here, along with various web > sites and wikipedia. > > On wikipedia, under quantum mechanies, I find the following > interpretations: > > Bayesian Consistent histories Copenhagen de Broglie?Bohm Ensemble > Hidden-variable > Local Many-worlds Objective collapse Quantum logic Relational > Transactional > > of which MWI is one, and that it is far from settled which one of these > is the correct one. > It is called an interpretation, but I do not consider it one, which is why I abbreviate it as MW rather than MW. Here are some further quotes which I hope will strengthen my case: David Deutsch says of MW: "It is not in fact an ?interpretation? of quantum theory at all, any more than dinosaurs are an ?interpretation? of the fossil record. It is simply what quantum mechanics is. ?The only astonishing thing is that that?s still controversial,? Deutsch says. Also : "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger.? Max Tegmark on Copenhagen deviating from equations of quantum mechanics : "Bohr and Heisenberg came up with a remarkably radical remedy that became known as the Copenhagen interpretation, which to this day is taught and advocated in most quantum mechanics textbooks. A key part of it is to add a loophole to the second item mentioned above, postulating that change is only governed by the Schr?dinger equation part of the time, depending on whether an observation is taking place. Specifically, if something is not being observed, then its wavefunction changes according to the Schr?dinger equation, but if it is being observed, then its wavefunction collapses so that you find the object only in one place." And on it being a different theory : "Whereas traditional physical processes would be described by mathematical equations, the Copenhagen interpretation had no equation specifying what constituted an observation, that is, exactly when the wavefunction would collapse. Did it really require a human observer, or was consciousness in some broader sense sufficient to collapse the wavefunction? As Einstein put it: ?Does the Moon exist because a mouse looks at it?? Can a robot collapse the wavefunction? What about a webcam?" [...] "Loosely speaking, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that small things act weird but big things don?t. Specifically, things as small as atoms are usually in several places at once, but things as big as people aren?t." Tegmark on how CI is undefined : "Quantum mechanics: I disagree that the distinction between Everett and Copenhagen is "just interpretation". The former is a mathematical theory, the latter is not. The former says simply that the Schr?dinger equation always applies. The latter says that it only applies sometimes, but doesn't given an equation specifying when it doesn't apply (when the so-called collapse is supposed to happen). If someone were to come up with such an equation, then the two theories would be mathematically different and you might hope to make an experiment to test which one is right." > But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past each > other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =) > Yes, some progress, I hope. :-) BTW, while looking through Tegmark's book I found this, which pertains to our discussion on whether unobservable things can be falsifiable/testable: https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/124/mode/2up?q=%22Are+theories+predicting+the+existence%22 > > > Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does > > increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick > > apart the game. > > > > Well we can never prove anything. But I'm willing to bet that when the > second tower was hit on 9/11 you concluded that you had > > observed an intentional act rather than two accidents. We use > probability in our reasoning like this all the time in our everyday > > lives. Quantum suicide just asks you to apply that same kind of > reasoning. > > What is the suicide rate among MWI proponents? As for using statistics > beyond this world, I think we already touched on that a few emails back. > I am aware of one case where someone believing in many worlds took their own life. It was Hugh Everett's daughter: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Many_Worlds_of_Hugh_Everett_III/dqgqPjqIyJoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Please%20sprinkle%20me%20in%20some%20nice%20body%20of%20water%E2%80%A6or%20the%20garbage%2C%20maybe%20that%20way%20I'll%20end%20up%20in%20the%20correct%20parallel%20universe%20to%20meet%20up%20w%2F%20Daddy.&pg=PT393&printsec=frontcover There was one attempt that was backed out of in the last moment: https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/90QNXd9Q9bk/m/vbvGBDB_EssJ Max Tegmark also said : "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one day--when I'm old and crazy." > > > What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are > arguing > > proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with > yourself)? > > > > It's a good question. Since I believe there is only one mind then in a > certain sense I do believe I am arguing with myself. > > Regardless, I find such discussion a fruitful exercise, whoever you may > be. > > That's a nice way of thinking about it. Rest assured, I have not > forgotten the Arnold Zuboff paper! > Glad to hear that! > > > Since I also believe in an infinite and comprehensive reality, there is > further not one version of you, but an infinite number (and > > from my limited perspective) there are many distinct possibilities that > remain compatible with everything I presently know. (You > > could be someone outside this simulation, an alien, a delusion, or > exactly who you say ??). You are in fact all of these, in varying > > fractions across the multiverse, just as I have analogous existences as > all of these possibilities to you from your perspective. > > Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very consistent! =) > I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your agnosticism. > > > I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about > it. > > > > As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than > others > > (pink unicorns). > > > > What basis do you use to compare the relative likelihood of two theories > for which we have no observational evidence? Is it innate > > complexity of the theory? (I.e. do you use the heuristic of simplicity > when you judge theories?) If so, what is the basis of this? > > Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) Humans had no answer to this generally, until rather recently. Agains, Russell Standish, and Markus Muller have worked out a basis for Occam's Razor, from ensemble type theories. That is, they explain not only why the universe has something like a Shrodinger equation behind it, but also why the simplest laws tend to be the right ones. > If I briefly analyze myself > with the option of god and a pink unicorn, I'd say that god wins due to > how comprehensive the theory is, and how well it would "fit" with the > world as it is, over a pink unicorn, which seems to be something chose > in jest and very arbitrary. ;) > I agree. Unnecessary arbitrariness seems to be absent in any true theory. > > > Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that > far, > > then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic > > reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you > and I > > exist, and that we do live in a material universe. > > > > But everything you know is compatible with our existence in idealism > (including all our assumed observations of matter). Further, > > physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things > behave. > > But we can never know what anything "is" except our own consciousness. I > think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a > material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world. > A platonic world can be shown to explain the appearance of a material world. It is thus a simpler theory than material world + platonic world, it is simply: platonic world. Using simplicity of matter as an argument to rule out idealism, is an application of metaphysical laws (assuming a metaphysical principle that favors simplicity) this is why I asked if you believed in such a heuristic. I think most people assume it, and operate by it, but do not generally stop and wonder about the source of this heuristic, and why it works. > > > We have two metaphysical theories: > > Materialism and Idealism > > How do you decide between them, without using metaphysics, reasoning, > etc. (When observational evidence doesn't work). > > > > You either have to be agnostic on materialism/idealism, or you must > accept that whatever methods you use to decide between them, are > > applicable to questions like do other universes exist. It would be > inconsistent, I think to use metaphysics to answer one question > > but say metaphysics is invalid when I deciding the other question. > > Yes, philosophically we can doubt everything and nothing is certain, > including the possible illusion of us experiencing anything. > > But absolute doubt refutes itself. On pragmatic grounds, as in, science > works, does gives us "power" over the physical world, allows us to > predict events in the physical world, to me, provides evidence of a > materialist position. > > And _yes_, I do give you that no one can be sure about anything, but > since that is a dead end, I do find the pragmatic way, and the simple > idea of material instead of material + ideal to be the way forward. > > But no, I am not 100% sure of that. And yes, based on what we've > discussed so far, do not see how anything about MWI could _currently_ > move it from a theory to something which would fit well in with our > current ways of predicting events. > I hope have hope that you will. :-) > > As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the > interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll > insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known and > when he or they can be used to make testable predictions. > But isn't this inconsistent with your strong bet on materialism? What proof do you have that lets you ascribe a near certainty to materialism, but deny the same could be done for MW? > > > I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our > other > > discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think > some > > sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one > position > > that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion > around > > mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) > > > > Glad to hear it. > > > > Do the digits of Pi go on forever,? > > > > This is a mathematical truth without correspondence to any physical fact > of our finite universe of 10^120 bits. > > > > So if Pi has digits that go on forever, they can't have any physical > correspondence, and they cannot exist in our universe. Whe e > > then, do they know exist? > > Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and > eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain > interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually > computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the > human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols. > Do you believe that the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is either '0' or '1'? Or would you say it is a meaningless question because no one in this universe could ever determine which it was? What then, if I told you, there was some other larger universe, where people there had computed it, and determined which it was. Would that mean they have different mathematical truths there, than we have here? > > > I'm no expert, but > > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful > when we > > interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the > > concept is meaningless. > > > > There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this > universe. This follows from the fact that there are systems > > of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable > universe. > > See my previous reply. > I have heard people argue for ultrafinitism before, but I think it leads to inconsistencies. Most things we have proven in mathematics would be false, if there were not infinite numbers. For example, the proof that there are infinite primes would be false, under ultrafinitism. If Pi's digits do not go on forever, then e^(2Pi*i) would not equal 1, but some other number. If it is not 1, then all of mathematics breaks down due to the principle of explosion (see: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#The_Foundational_Crisis ) > > > Just consider something simple, like the factors of zero. Are there an > infinite number of them? No person can comprehend them all of > > them, which suggests a finite number of factors. So then, how many > factors does zero have (if the truth of a number being a factor of > > of zero requires human processing)? > > See above, pi example. > > > > Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any > unique redness. > > > It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative > to that > > > individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia > thread, and I > > > do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any > direction. ;) > > > > > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on > anything. > > > > Very true. ;) > > > > Coincidentally there was a blue moon the day I wrote that. ?? > > Yes, I remember thinking that when I read this message the first time, > but then I forgot. ;) Shame on me for taking on too much work at the > moment, which in turn, makes me take way too long to respond to emails. > > No worries. :-) Best, Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason > Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, August > 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Stuart, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a quick > question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting > > > > > > > edge physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You say that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that a > copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because > > you are > > > already > > > > > immortal. You > > > > > > > don't need to > > > > > > > copy > yourself because there are already plenty of, if not > > infinite > > > numbers of, > > > > you > > > > > strewn about > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > multiverse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I wonder > is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses > > supported by > > > proof or > > > > is itone > > > > > of many > > > > > > > interpretations of > > > > > > > current > theories? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthropic > considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the > > probability > > > there's > > > > only > > > > > one > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > (with one kind of > > > > > > > physics) is on the > order of 1 in 10^122. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is as close to > proof as anything science can provide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stuart > LaForge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in > > uploading, > > > so I > > > > think we > > > > > should > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you > > please > > > explain > > > > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you also please explain the comment about > > continuity and > > > > not-discontinuity > > > > > not > > > > > > being > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > extropy-chat > mailing list > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 14 21:01:02 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:01:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <589fb0ba-14ba-fe3a-8ee4-9d2abd98529d@swisscows.email> Thank you Bill! Seems like the AI and I are in agreement. However, neither the AI nor I are the most up to date, so maybe we missed something. Do you know when its training data stopped? Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > I thought it would be useful to get a summary of the MWI objections, > so I asked around in the AI members club. All the responses were > fairly similar, so I have copied the answer I liked best below. > One AI did add the caution : > It is worth noting that alternative interpretations of quantum > mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation or the pilot-wave > theory, have their own merits and drawbacks. The choice between > interpretations often hinges on personal preference, philosophical > considerations, and the specific problem being addressed. > ---------- > I interpret that as saying that as yet quantum mechanics still has > many theoretical difficulties. :) > > BillK > ------------------------------- > > MWI Criticism Summary > > The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a controversial interpretation > of quantum mechanics that was proposed by physicist Hugh Everett III > in 1957. It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum > measurement actually occurs in a separate universe, resulting in a > branching or splitting of reality. While the MWI has gained some > popularity among physicists, it also faces significant criticism and > challenges from various perspectives. > > One of the main criticisms of the MWI is its lack of testability and > falsifiability. Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite > number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes > impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. This lack > of empirical evidence raises concerns about the scientific validity of > the MWI as it deviates from the traditional scientific method. > > Another criticism revolves around the issue of probability. In the > MWI, probabilities are assigned to different outcomes based on their > relative frequency across all possible universes. However, this > approach raises questions about how probabilities can be meaningfully > defined when there are an infinite number of universes. Critics argue > that without a clear framework for assigning probabilities, the MWI > fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena. > > Furthermore, the MWI faces challenges in explaining macroscopic > observations and classical behavior. While it may be able to account > for quantum phenomena at the microscopic level, it struggles to > explain why we observe a classical world with definite outcomes rather > than a superposition of possibilities. Critics argue that the MWI > fails to provide a convincing mechanism for the emergence of classical > behavior from quantum principles. > > Additionally, some critics question the philosophical implications of > the MWI. The theory suggests that every possible outcome exists in a > separate universe, leading to an infinite number of parallel > realities. This idea raises philosophical concerns about personal > identity and consciousness. Critics argue that it is difficult to > reconcile our subjective experience with the notion that there are > countless versions of ourselves in different universes. > > Moreover, the MWI has been criticized for its complexity and lack of > simplicity. Occam's razor, a principle in science that favors simpler > explanations over more complex ones, is often invoked against the MWI. > Critics argue that the theory introduces unnecessary complexity by > postulating the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, > without providing a clear justification for such a hypothesis. > > In conclusion, while the Many Worlds Interpretation has gained > attention and support from some physicists, it also faces significant > criticism. The lack of testability and falsifiability, challenges in > defining probabilities, difficulties in explaining macroscopic > observations, philosophical implications, and complexity concerns are > among the main criticisms raised against the MWI. > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 21:34:00 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 22:34:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <589fb0ba-14ba-fe3a-8ee4-9d2abd98529d@swisscows.email> References: <589fb0ba-14ba-fe3a-8ee4-9d2abd98529d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Hi Daniel The AI that I quoted is up-to-date. It uses a search engine to find Authoritative Publications and results from web sites, then the AI assembles the results. (See below) The AIs are being trained continually now, though some may still be using older data. BillK Top 3 Authoritative Reference Publications or Domain Names Used in Answering this Question: 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - plato.stanford.edu 2. Physics World - physicsworld.com 3. American Physical Society - aps.org Web results- www.quantamagazine.org Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems eliotkersgaard.medium.com Critiques of the Many Worlds (Multiverse) Interpretation of en.m.wikipedia.org Many-worlds interpretation plato.stanford.edu Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics physics.stackexchange.com quantum mechanics - Arguments for and against Many Worlds? --------------------- On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 22:03, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > Thank you Bill! Seems like the AI and I are in agreement. However, neither > the AI nor I are the most up to date, so maybe we missed something. > > Do you know when its training data stopped? > > Best regards, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 21:38:42 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:38:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 12:24?PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I thought it would be useful to get a summary of the MWI objections, > so I asked around in the AI members club. All the responses were > fairly similar, so I have copied the answer I liked best below. > One AI did add the caution : > It is worth noting that alternative interpretations of quantum > mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation or the pilot-wave > theory, have their own merits and drawbacks. Pilot-wave theory is also a many-worlds theory. Except it further stipulates that the other people in those other branches are philosophical zombies. And as I mentioned in the other thread, CI is a different theory, since it says matter doesn't always obey the Shrodinger equation. > The choice between > interpretations often hinges on personal preference, philosophical > considerations, and the specific problem being addressed. > One can accept that the Shrodinger equation is true always, or they can deny that it is true always. If it is true always, that implies many-worlds. I don't see where philosophy enters the picture. Theories are either true or false, and we have gathered substantial evidence that the Shrodinger equation is always true, and never found any evidence implying it ever stops being true. > ---------- > I interpret that as saying that as yet quantum mechanics still has > many theoretical difficulties. :) > > BillK > ------------------------------- > > MWI Criticism Summary > > The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is a controversial interpretation > of quantum mechanics that was proposed by physicist Hugh Everett III > in 1957. Erwin Shrodinger actually proposed it a few years before Everett. ?Schr?dinger also had the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin, in which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't that a strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner?that he feared being considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won the Nobel Prize for, might be true.? -- David Deutsch > It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum > measurement actually occurs in a separate universe, resulting in a > branching or splitting of reality. While the MWI has gained some > popularity among physicists, it also faces significant criticism and > challenges from various perspectives. > > One of the main criticisms of the MWI is its lack of testability and > falsifiability. It's those who maintain that the Shrodinger equation doesn't always hold that have a problem with testability. They haven't even given a mathematical formulation for when/how/why the universe stops obeying the Schrodinger equation. > Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite > number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes > impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. This is false, see the page I cited from Tegmark's book on falsifiability: https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/124/mode/2up?q=%22Are+theories%22 > This lack > of empirical evidence raises concerns about the scientific validity of > the MWI as it deviates from the traditional scientific method. > MW is simply QM. If this claim is true about MW, it must be true of QM, yet no one says that out loud. > > Another criticism revolves around the issue of probability. In the > MWI, probabilities are assigned to different outcomes based on their > relative frequency across all possible universes. However, this > approach raises questions about how probabilities can be meaningfully > defined when there are an infinite number of universes. Critics argue > that without a clear framework for assigning probabilities, the MWI > fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena. > On the contrary, MW is the only theory that provides a mathematical explanation for why the Born rule works (via Gleason's theorem). The other interpretations simply assume the Born rule but fail to explain it or why it gives the observed probabilities. > > Furthermore, the MWI faces challenges in explaining macroscopic > observations and classical behavior. Not at all. This is covered completely under the explanation of decoherence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence > While it may be able to account > for quantum phenomena at the microscopic level, it struggles to > explain why we observe a classical world with definite outcomes rather > than a superposition of possibilities. It doesn't. See my "QM primer": https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NThhVw4hrPxOueAQEwr-MNfIQiBaPd9o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109779696990142678208&rtpof=true&sd=true > Critics argue that the MWI > fails to provide a convincing mechanism for the emergence of classical > behavior from quantum principles. > See my previous two replies. > > Additionally, some critics question the philosophical implications of > the MWI. The theory suggests that every possible outcome exists in a > separate universe, leading to an infinite number of parallel > realities. It is simply the idea that wave function evolves according to the Shrodinger equation. All other interpretations accept the wave function, they just say it stops following the Shrodinger equation under certain (not well defined) conditions. But there is no evidence it ever stops evolving according to the Shrodinger equation. > This idea raises philosophical concerns about personal > identity and consciousness. And here is, I think, lies the real source of all the objections to many-worlds. People want to be unique, and not worry about all their other duplicates out there. It's not a real objection, it's an emotional one. > Critics argue that it is difficult to > reconcile our subjective experience with the notion that there are > countless versions of ourselves in different universes. > I don't see how. > > Moreover, the MWI has been criticized for its complexity and lack of > simplicity. Occam's razor, a principle in science that favors simpler > explanations over more complex ones, is often invoked against the MWI. > Occam's razor is about simpler theories, not entities in nature. MW is the simplest theory. > Critics argue that the theory introduces unnecessary complexity by > postulating the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, > without providing a clear justification for such a hypothesis. > It follows from the equations, that is the justification. Jason > > In conclusion, while the Many Worlds Interpretation has gained > attention and support from some physicists, it also faces significant > criticism. The lack of testability and falsifiability, challenges in > defining probabilities, difficulties in explaining macroscopic > observations, philosophical implications, and complexity concerns are > among the main criticisms raised against the MWI. > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 14 22:02:52 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:02:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <589fb0ba-14ba-fe3a-8ee4-9d2abd98529d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Wow, that's really nice that it can spit out the sources! Is this available for free for students? I've just started to teach a new class of future devops engineers, and of course chat gpt is a topic, but an AI that also spits out the sources seems way better for learning than one that doesn't. Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > Hi Daniel > The AI that I quoted is up-to-date. It uses a search engine to find > Authoritative Publications and results from web sites, then the AI > assembles the results. (See below) > The AIs are being trained continually now, though some may still be > using older data. > BillK > > Top 3 Authoritative Reference Publications or Domain Names Used in > Answering this Question: > 1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - plato.stanford.edu > 2. Physics World - physicsworld.com > 3. American Physical Society - aps.org > > Web results- > www.quantamagazine.org > Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems > > eliotkersgaard.medium.com > Critiques of the Many Worlds (Multiverse) Interpretation of > > en.m.wikipedia.org > Many-worlds interpretation > > plato.stanford.edu > Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics > > physics.stackexchange.com > quantum mechanics - Arguments for and against Many Worlds? > --------------------- > > > On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 22:03, efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> Thank you Bill! Seems like the AI and I are in agreement. However, neither >> the AI nor I are the most up to date, so maybe we missed something. >> >> Do you know when its training data stopped? >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 14 22:24:49 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:24:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Jason and Bill (and by extension, the AI ;)), I just wanted to address the Tegmark bit, and I'll get back to your email (Jason) later since I like to read it, and then sleep on it, to see if sleeps yields any additional insights. But the Tegmark bit, was a quick read (unless some crucial parts are hidden on the remaining pages): > Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite > number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes > impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. > > This is false, see the page I cited from Tegmark's book on falsifiability: > https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/124/mode/2up?q=%22Are+theories%22 So based on that page, the argument goes that Einsteins theories have testable components, and they also make predictions about the insides of a black whole that we cannot test. Likewise, qm contains testable components, and yields interpretations of which one is the MWI. Then Tegmarks argues, that since we accept Einsteins theory, we must accept what it tells us about black holes, and here is where I disagree with him. Actually, I think its just a matter of degree and interpretation, so I'm not sure we would disagree at all. But that's besides the point. The reason I disagree with Tegmark is that we cannot (yet) test to confirm the predictions of what happens inside a black whole. That puts us in the position of being able to test some claims of Einstein, and use them profitably. The theory in turn, makes untestable predictions, theories, ideas, about what happens inside a black hole. The key here is that it is a theory, a useful tool, that makes predictions about this world, and places in this world we cannot access. That means that we today can never say what actually happens inside a black hole. We can only estimate, but never verify. Yes, what follows out of Einstien is for sure better than a fiction book, but at the end of the day we have to accept that it will most likely forever remain theory, even though it is an enlightened one. That is why I do not accept that MWI is testable. That claim is not testable, and that also doesn't take into account that MWI is not the only interpretation, or other possibly future ones. So to put this in more dramatic terms, if a theory predicts god, but a god that will forever be absent, will never respond, and will never affect your world in any way, for all we know, we can safely just disregard it. God might be a theoretical possibility or extrapolation, but at the end of the day its just a nice story and will never be true knowledge and true certainty. The scientific method is a great tool for this world, and so is math, but it does break down into metaphysics when applied to gods and other entities which by definition are completely outside the scope of this world. I'll get back to that in the other thread in time, so please bear with me. Best regards, Daniel From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 22:42:31 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:42:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What do you think about what Tegmark says about theories being all or nothing z that we can't take them piecemeal like we can get coffee without caffeine. (Did you see that part of his argument?) Jason On Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 6:25 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hello Jason and Bill (and by extension, the AI ;)), > > I just wanted to address the Tegmark bit, and I'll get back to your email > (Jason) later since I like to read it, and then sleep on it, to see if > sleeps yields any additional insights. > > But the Tegmark bit, was a quick read (unless some crucial parts are > hidden on the remaining pages): > > > Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite > > number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it > becomes > > impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. > > > > This is false, see the page I cited from Tegmark's book on > falsifiability: > > > https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/124/mode/2up?q=%22Are+theories%22 > > So based on that page, the argument goes that Einsteins theories have > testable components, and they also make predictions about the insides of > a black whole that we cannot test. > > Likewise, qm contains testable components, and yields interpretations of > which one is the MWI. > > Then Tegmarks argues, that since we accept Einsteins theory, we must > accept what it tells us about black holes, and here is where I disagree > with him. Actually, I think its just a matter of degree and > interpretation, so I'm not sure we would disagree at all. But that's > besides the point. > > The reason I disagree with Tegmark is that we cannot (yet) test to > confirm the predictions of what happens inside a black whole. That puts > us in the position of being able to test some claims of Einstein, and > use them profitably. The theory in turn, makes untestable predictions, > theories, ideas, about what happens inside a black hole. > > The key here is that it is a theory, a useful tool, that makes > predictions about this world, and places in this world we cannot access. > That means that we today can never say what actually happens inside a > black hole. We can only estimate, but never verify. Yes, what follows > out of Einstien is for sure better than a fiction book, but at the end > of the day we have to accept that it will most likely forever remain > theory, even though it is an enlightened one. > > That is why I do not accept that MWI is testable. That claim is not > testable, and that also doesn't take into account that MWI is not the > only interpretation, or other possibly future ones. > > So to put this in more dramatic terms, if a theory predicts god, but a > god that will forever be absent, will never respond, and will never > affect your world in any way, for all we know, we can safely just > disregard it. God might be a theoretical possibility or extrapolation, > but at the end of the day its just a nice story and will never be true > knowledge and true certainty. > > The scientific method is a great tool for this world, and so is math, > but it does break down into metaphysics when applied to gods and other > entities which by definition are completely outside the scope of this > world. > > I'll get back to that in the other thread in time, so please bear with > me. > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Sep 15 04:15:36 2023 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:15:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> On 2023-09-14 10:22, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > I thought it would be useful to get a summary of the MWI objections, > so I asked around in the AI members club. All the responses were > fairly similar, so I have copied the answer I liked best below. [snip] > I interpret that as saying that as yet quantum mechanics still has > many theoretical difficulties. :) Yes. Accounting for gravity being the most glaring difficulty. > BillK > ------------------------------- > > MWI Criticism Summary [snip] > One of the main criticisms of the MWI is its lack of testability and > falsifiability. Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite > number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes > impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. This lack > of empirical evidence raises concerns about the scientific validity of > the MWI as it deviates from the traditional scientific method. It might be testable. For example, I think the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester only makes sense if MWI is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byEaU9ILHmw Basically the bomb detector works because a photon gets super-positioned into two routes by a beam splitter in a Mach-Zender interferometer and interferes with itself. If the bomb is a dud, then the photon will pass through the bomb and take both paths at once through the interferometer and will recombine at the 2nd beam splitter always getting detected at detector A due to constructive interference and never at detector B because of destructive interference. But if bomb is live, it acts as a which way detector preventing the photon from entering a superposition and interfering with itself. This means that either the bomb will explode 50% of the time or it will hit either detector A or detector B 25% of the time each. If it hits detector A, then you you have no way of knowing if the bomb is live or a dud. But if it hits detector B, then you know it is a live bomb, because it did not take both paths at once and interfere with itself and it did not blow up the bomb. This means that the counterfactual photon caused a counterfactual bomb to explode, destroying itself in the process, and preventing it from interfering with the observed photon. This causes the photon to only take one path, end up at detector B, and thereby prove that the bomb is live and not a dud. It would not make sense that the photon would not blow up the bomb and not interfere with itself unless something happened to the other photon. Stuff that does not happen should not be able to cause stuff to happen here. Unless the stuff that doesn't happen here happens in another universe and that is what causes stuff to happen here. Stuart LaForge From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 08:12:01 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:12:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> References: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> Message-ID: <5f8e194a-51f9-eba8-624b-ef0bd8c651c2@swisscows.email> Hello Stuart, On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote: > It might be testable. For example, I think the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester > only makes sense if MWI is true. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byEaU9ILHmw Just adding this for completeness sake: "Jean Bricmont offered an interpretation of the Elitzur?Vaidman bomb test in terms of Bohmian mechanics.[10] It has also been argued that the bomb test can be constructed within the Spekkens toy model, suggesting that it is a less dramatic illustration of non-classicality than other quantum phenomena like the violation of Bell inequalities.[11]" (same wikipedia page) and that it seems that the inventors/supporters or other interpretations are hard at work as well designing experiments: "An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the potential validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil droplets. In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a vibrating fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves produced by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical behavior with remarkable accuracy.[116][117]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments). Best regards, Daniel From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 11:38:33 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:38:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: It's a classic, but also a new day, so why not? A horse went into a bar asking for a drink. The bartender asked: Why the long face? Enjoy! ;) Best regards, Daniel On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: spike at rainier66.com > Sent: Tuesday, 12 September, 2023 3:32 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Cc: spike at rainier66.com > Subject: RE: [ExI] pun of the day > > > ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day > > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 20:19, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> That conquistador later turned pirate, and found himself in need of a hook. Where did he get it? >> The second hand store. >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ...After that, he gave up the pirate business and went to college as a marketing major. It was much more difficult than he thought, and he had to work his ass off. But he found a way to succeed. How? > > spike > > > > > He went to the local retailer. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 12:29:09 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:29:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> References: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 12:16 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 2023-09-14 10:22, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > I thought it would be useful to get a summary of the MWI objections, > > so I asked around in the AI members club. All the responses were > > fairly similar, so I have copied the answer I liked best below. > [snip] > > I interpret that as saying that as yet quantum mechanics still has > > many theoretical difficulties. :) > > Yes. Accounting for gravity being the most glaring difficulty. > > > BillK > > ------------------------------- > > > > MWI Criticism Summary > [snip] > > One of the main criticisms of the MWI is its lack of testability and > > falsifiability. Since the theory posits the existence of an infinite > > number of parallel universes, each with different outcomes, it becomes > > impossible to experimentally verify or disprove this claim. This lack > > of empirical evidence raises concerns about the scientific validity of > > the MWI as it deviates from the traditional scientific method. > > It might be testable. For example, I think the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb > tester only makes sense if MWI is true. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byEaU9ILHmw > Basically the bomb detector works because a photon gets super-positioned > into two routes by a beam splitter in a Mach-Zender interferometer and > interferes with itself. If the bomb is a dud, then the photon will pass > through the bomb and take both paths at once through the interferometer > and will recombine at the 2nd beam splitter always getting detected at > detector A due to constructive interference and never at detector B > because of destructive interference. > > But if bomb is live, it acts as a which way detector preventing the > photon from entering a superposition and interfering with itself. This > means that either the bomb will explode 50% of the time or it will hit > either detector A or detector B 25% of the time each. If it hits > detector A, then you you have no way of knowing if the bomb is live or a > dud. But if it hits detector B, then you know it is a live bomb, because > it did not take both paths at once and interfere with itself and it did > not blow up the bomb. > > This means that the counterfactual photon caused a counterfactual bomb > to explode, destroying itself in the process, and preventing it from > interfering with the observed photon. This causes the photon to only > take one path, end up at detector B, and thereby prove that the bomb is > live and not a dud. It would not make sense that the photon would not > blow up the bomb and not interfere with itself unless something happened > to the other photon. Stuff that does not happen should not be able to > cause stuff to happen here. Unless the stuff that doesn't happen here > happens in another universe and that is what causes stuff to happen > here. > How is this experiment any different from any single photons interferometer experiment (where we say, replace the bomb with a red or blue stained piece of glass) and use photons from a red light laser, and use photon arrival locations to infer the color of the glass placed in the path of one of the photons? It's less explosive than a bomb (just an explosion of some IR photons after the photon gets absorbed by the blue glass). But the outcomes are the same. It also seems to be equivalent to the two slit single electrons experiment where we put a detector at only one slit and don't observe the electron there. I haven't seen people say before that these experiments confirm MW. They do, of course, confirm a superposition of particle positions, but that has never been the issue with CI. CI accepts the superposition, it only adds that it disappears after an observation is made, whatever that may be, even if the observation happens to be "not observing an electron go through the right slit" or not observing an explosion of IR photons in the blue stained glass. So I am curious what you see in the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb test that implies MW. (If it's anything above and beyond the other superposition affirming experiments I mention above). Jason > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 15 12:31:45 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 05:31:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of efc--- via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day It's a classic, but also a new day, so why not? A horse went into a bar asking for a drink. The bartender asked: Why the long face? Enjoy! ;) Best regards, Daniel The horse replied: Whinny ya gonna stop asking that every time I come in? spike From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 15:32:57 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 17:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> Oh, I could take this in many directions, but I do need to restrain my politically incorrect and sometimes completely incomprehensible humour sometimes. It only works in person and with the right person. ;) Best regards, Daniel On Fri, 15 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > efc--- via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day > > It's a classic, but also a new day, so why not? > > A horse went into a bar asking for a drink. > The bartender asked: Why the long face? > > Enjoy! ;) > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > > The horse replied: Whinny ya gonna stop asking that every time I come in? > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 15 15:37:31 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:37:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of efc--- via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day >...Oh, I could take this in many directions, but I do need to restrain my politically incorrect and sometimes completely incomprehensible humour sometimes. It only works in person and with the right person. ;) Best regards, Daniel Daniel, on the contrary sir. Politically incorrect and incomprehensible humor are allowed here, and even nurtured. Personal attacks are not allowed, but you have never done that and don't seem a bit like the type to do that kinda thing. spike From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 15:56:11 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:56:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > It's a classic, but also a new day > A good time for linguistic analysis, breaking down pretensions and dressing of the alphabet, naturally starting with the first letter. In other words, a nude A for a new day. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 15 16:02:55 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:02:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: It's a classic, but also a new day A good time for linguistic analysis, breaking down pretensions and dressing of the alphabet, naturally starting with the first letter. In other words, a nude A for a new day. Daniel, since you are the new kid on the block, you might not know: Adrian has been the champion of wordplay for over two decades. He predates ChatGPT. Anyone who can even compete on the same field with that man is a the legendary word-monster under the bed. We will call you Uther Pundragon. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 16:22:13 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:22:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:04?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Adrian has been the champion of wordplay for over two decades. He > predates ChatGPT. > If predating is to dating as foreplay is to sex...well, I doubt I'll ever know for sure but it is possible that some of the code I wrote over the years ultimately wound up being part of ChatGPT. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 17:35:34 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:35:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Here's one that has to be done in person: What am I saying? New display (nudist play) bill On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:24?AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:04?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Adrian has been the champion of wordplay for over two decades. He >> predates ChatGPT. >> > > If predating is to dating as foreplay is to sex...well, I doubt I'll ever > know for sure but it is possible that some of the code I wrote over the > years ultimately wound up being part of ChatGPT. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 15 17:43:42 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:43:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012401d9e7fc$2be541c0$83afc540$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:04?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Adrian has been the champion of wordplay for over two decades. He predates ChatGPT. >?If predating is to dating as foreplay is to sex...well, I doubt I'll ever know for sure but it is possible that some of the code I wrote over the years ultimately wound up being part of ChatGPT. Well I suppose the newlywed among us would be the authority on that whole foreplay and sex business, so we will take your word for it. Besides I like that interpretation better than the alternative: one who wishes to date a comely lass but is still working up the nerve to ask, that guy predates the date, and so he is a predator. I don?t like the sound of that a bit. But foreplay is cool. Adrian, you are among friends here. Did the wedding go off as planned sir? Do invite your bride to chime in if she wishes. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 17:52:05 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:52:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <012401d9e7fc$2be541c0$83afc540$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> <012401d9e7fc$2be541c0$83afc540$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:45?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Adrian, you are among friends here. Did the wedding go off as planned sir? > She and I were married in a small ceremony (just us, my brother and his wife as the legally required two witnesses, and the officiant) at the clerk's office on May 22, just as planned. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 18:26:39 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:26:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <1d840660-b41a-161f-793e-978d9c40cdea@swisscows.email> Ahh, had no idea! Looking forward to it! =) Best regards, Daniel On Fri, 15 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > > ? > > ?> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day > > ? > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > It's a classic, but also a new day > > ? > > A good time for linguistic analysis, breaking down pretensions and dressing of the alphabet, naturally starting with the first > letter. > > ? > > In other words, a nude A for a new day. > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > > Daniel, since you are the new kid on the block, you might not know: Adrian has been the champion of wordplay for over two decades.? > He predates ChatGPT.? Anyone who can even compete on the same field with that man is a the legendary word-monster under the bed.? We > will call you Uther Pundragon.? > > ? > > spike > > > From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 18:27:29 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:27:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <00bb01d9e7ee$17905d30$46b11790$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > Adrian has been the champion of wordplay for over two decades.? He predates ChatGPT. > > If predating is to dating as foreplay is to sex...well, I doubt I'll ever know for sure but it is possible that some of the code I > wrote over the years ultimately wound up being part of ChatGPT.? And a poet as well! Best regards, Daniel From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 18:33:13 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:33:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <8827305c-c0e1-41ce-7bc2-b588b7b91ab3@swisscows.email> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > Daniel, on the contrary sir. Politically incorrect and incomprehensible > humor are allowed here, and even nurtured. Personal attacks are not > allowed, but you have never done that and don't seem a bit like the type to > do that kinda thing. > > spike Thank you spike, that makes me feel much better! I think I'll start mildly racist then... How do you sink a norwegian submarine? You knock on the door! Take that norway! ;) Best regards, Daniel From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 20:09:31 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:09:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <8827305c-c0e1-41ce-7bc2-b588b7b91ab3@swisscows.email> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> <8827305c-c0e1-41ce-7bc2-b588b7b91ab3@swisscows.email> Message-ID: I once showed up at an AA meeting drunk (really). I still had to do the therapy so I could complete the program the judge set for me. So, still drunk, I wandered on home and stumbled in and my wife asked what was going on. I said: "I just got out of basket therapy and I am still weaving." bill w On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 1:34?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Daniel, on the contrary sir. Politically incorrect and incomprehensible > > humor are allowed here, and even nurtured. Personal attacks are not > > allowed, but you have never done that and don't seem a bit like the type > to > > do that kinda thing. > > > > spike > > Thank you spike, that makes me feel much better! I think I'll start mildly > racist then... > > How do you sink a norwegian submarine? > > You knock on the door! > > Take that norway! ;) > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 15 20:16:26 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:16:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> <8827305c-c0e1-41ce-7bc2-b588b7b91ab3@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <01bd01d9e811$81dd91d0$8598b570$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, 15 September, 2023 1:10 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] pun of the day I once showed up at an AA meeting drunk (really). I still had to do the therapy so I could complete the program the judge set for me. So, still drunk, I wandered on home and stumbled in and my wife asked what was going on. I said: "I just got out of basket therapy and I am still weaving." bill w Bill don?t worry, you aren?t the first or only one who has done that. I have a friend who goes to those AA meetings, in spite of his never having been a drinker or devourer of recreational pharmaceuticals (Mormon to the core.) He wants to help those who are hoping to break out of the cycle. He once commented that he would estimate about a quarter to perhaps a third of attendees showed up drunk or stoned. Or both. I am constantly reminded that I don?t live in the real world. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 15 22:50:12 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 00:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Good evening Jason, I have a feeling that this dialogue is slowly getting to a stand still, at least from my side. I do not think I have the knowledge to interpret or understand what you are saying, (as seen below where I thought you were talking about quantum mechanics but in fact you were talkingabout ensemble-type theories) and as the nr of books and links is increasing that I would have to go through, to provide you with good answers, I find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. And that is not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) Ok, they might be better than the math and physics skills of the average person, but not anywhere close to the skills of this list. So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I would not be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything you are saying. But, let's see. I'll have a look below, and let's see how it goes, but I feel like I'm approaching my limit in terms of knowledge and time, and as Wittgenstein said... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". ;) On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > Yes, so far, so good. I'm not debating (or at least that was not my > intention) QM here. I'm debating interpretations of qm which in some > cases I think go too far, and in my opinion, some interpretations are > unscientific and can never be proved, other we _might_ be able to prove, > but actually doing so, lies far, far ahead in the future. > > Note: I am not discussing QM as a theory here. I am discussing a theory that *predicts QM*. (I know this is confusing given the other > discussions of interpretations of QM below, but this has nothing to do with QM as a theory, this has to do with a more general > underlying ensemble theory, which can predict and account for why the universe happens to be quantum mechanical in the first place. > QM cannot do this.) Ahhh... this I know nothing about. I misunderstood. So that would probably mean a new beginning for me and a lot of reading I suspect. > That's one interpretation among many, and not without its critique and > claims that it cannot be proven etc. Just adding that, but yes, MWI is > the theory that you find most probable, so let's focus on that one. > > I am not talking about QM. I am talking about the work of Russell Standish, Markus P. Muller, and Bruno Marchal, all of which have > used ensemble-type theories to predict aspects of quantum mechanics as traits we should expect to observe of our universe, if the > ensemble theory is true. For example, please see Appendix D of this book:?https://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf on page > 217 where he derives the Shrodinger equation from first principles. This the point I am?making, I am not talking about QM or its > interpretations here, but rather *the more fundamental theory* that explains/predicts/accounts for QM. > > When you understand I am talking about this more fundamental theory, then you will see my point regarding how we can have > observational evidence that supports the conclusion of a reality beyond this one. Here we have the problem. In my current state, with so many years between me now, and me in university, this means very little to me. Therefore I cannot comment on what you say. I would like to, but I cannot. Very sorry. =( > I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, it is > up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do not > find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable > intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to > metaphysical chaos. > > Of course. I agree observation evidence is crucial. My point is that we have it, that is, we have observed our universe to obey the > Shrodinger equation, and this is evidence for *the more fundamental theory* which predicts a universe governed by the Shrodinger > equation. I think this might enter Tegmark territory, and my opinion still stands unchanged. We have observed equations predict events. We then extrapolate things we will (most likely) never be able to prove. They will forever remain extrapolations. Lawrence post on the extropolis list struck a chord with me, and I think it perhaps better illustrates my view of the difference between proof and extrapolations: "People who go down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations find themselves in a nest of thorns and nettles. No matter what interpretation it is the attempt to make it something derivable or the single only consistent interpretation leads into a growing mire of complexity that does not close. Carroll and others working on MWI are clearly entering this. Other interpretations similarly hit this reef. The best interpretation is no interpretation. All interpretations are attempts to make quantum mechanics transduced into our ordinary way of thinking, but QM is logically different in a way that makes this impossible. As Wittgenstein put it, "That which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." That is the best advice with respect to quantum interpretations." The fun coincidence here is that I thought of that quote before going to bed, and then woke up and read it in Lawrence message. Maybe information is leaking between universes after all? ;) Regardless, this illustrates something I thought a lot about, and that is moving from equations to verbal descriptions. That aspect of theoretical physics, moving from nrs and equations, to putting it into words, has always fascinated me, and I would not be surprised if that might perhaps be a source of error and confusion. Our words and languagesare not mathematical and number based, so maybe a distortion does take place when we translate between the two languages? > > Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%. > > Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%. > > Well, I think that's the problem here. Your confidence is 95%, my > confidence is not. > > This is just an example. In any case, nothing prevents us from performing?the same objective Bayesian calculation and arriving at the > same result. But nothing prevents us from not doing it either. The one thing that does help is observable evidence. And extrapolating to other universes and other realms I think definitely makes that more difficult. The tool "breaks down" so to speak. > And since there is no proof either way, and since > there are many competing theories, it currently remains a theory and the > confidence varies wildly depending on who you ask. > > You can work backwards to find the different assumptions people are using to arrive upon different estimates of confidence. These > aren't unsolvable problems. Some might be, other might not. Using the same starting points, people do end up in different locations. That is a fact, but the good news is that the scientific method and time will correct that. As I said, when smart people created and performed the experiments that prove MWI (or any other interpretation) beyond doubt, I'll gladly join the choire if I understand the proof. If it is not possible to produce a proof that I can understand, I'll withhold judgement until I do, or until there is a comfortable consensus, although that can be deadly too. > It seems to me, that > every theory has his highly educated and intelligent champion and all > are equally good at arguing their point to me as a non-physicist with > limited math skills. > > That is perhaps the most important lesson of all. Some of the smartest people in the world often disagree, which implies the smartest > people in the world are often wrong. Of course they are. By definition not all quantum mechanical interpretations can all be right, so there will be a lot of very smart and disappointed people, once a winner emerges, and then I guess we'll see a paradigm shift perhaps? > But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is performed, that > brings final evidence for MWI,? > > that would be filtered through experts, > replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then shoot up > to close to 100%. > > I think you would still have to wait for the CI adherents to die off, as Planck suggested: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle > As it is, I think the existence of working quantum computers already constitutes such proof for MW. Bell's experiment too, is proof > of MW, if you believe special relativity is true and nothing travels faster than light. Nice methodology. ;) I've seen other proposals for other experiments which have or have not proven other interpretations. So we'll see. As you said in an earlier message, the MWI:ers are increasing, but Copenhagen is still in the lead. On the other hand, science is not a democracy, so all it takes is one person being right and one proof. This is why I do not like my own approach of looking at the comfortable consensus. But, not being a theoretical physicist, what else can such a man do? =( > From a philosophical point of view, you are correct of course, and we > all end up in solipsism if everything is doubted. When it comes to what > makes me believe in bigbang or gravity with a high degree of confidence > rather than the MWI, I'll lean on the consensus of the scientific > community, since I am not a scientist, and yes, shame on me for doing > that. ;) It is sad that science has become so specialized that that is a > necessary shortcut for non-scientists. I'll pay the price of being late > to the party, and I think that is a price worth paying. > > It is good to acknowledge this. So then, do I take it that your objection to MW is not that we cannot see them, but that there is not > yet a consensus of scientists that accepts them? Yes and no. A time proven consensus of scientists will definitely tilt me in favour of the concept. The other thing which annoys me, and I know you have tried to explain it, but I do not understand it, is that there can be no bi-directional information flow between them. So to me, it seems like a pointless theory. I think your Tegmark book and my reply to that page you quoted would probably be as far as I would be willing to go. So I'm not in principle opposed to MWI due to any spiritual grounds, and as you say, once a time tested consensus appears, I will be more likely to accept that theory, and... I do hope that by then, the explanations and experiments which will have created this consensus will have been translated into language and explanation which someone like me can understand. > But that is an empty or nonsensical term if you talk with someone who does > not believe in god. It only amounts to language games. > > What's the difference, in your view, between math, logic, reason, philosophy, and language games? Or do you see them as all > equivalent? No, I do not see them as equivalent. Instead of me defining the difference between these 5 terms, take me to the next step of your argument, and I'll take it from there. > Not to any > knowledge about the world. You can say infinite amounts of statements > about god, but at the end of the day, they will yield nothing. > > I disagree. We can reason about the valid properties of objects whose existence we are uncertain of. For example, we don't know if > there are odd "perfect numbers", but we can say much about the properties such numbers must have, should they exist. I think theology > is such a science. We can reason, for example, about whether omnipotence or omniscience?are mutually consistent properties to have, > or even whether they are individually consistent with themselves. If we find them to not be consistent, then we can form a statement > like "If omniscience is inconsistent, then if God exists, God is not omniscient." Well, since I do not believe in god, theology for me is just wordplay. To me, it is meaningless. If you do believe in god, I fully respect that, and of course it follows that theology is important to you. Since I do not, my opinion is that it gives us nothing. > I think there is rational evidence of God*. > (* For some definitions of God) > > For example, see these sections from my articles: > * https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts > * https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife > * https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God I think there is no rational evidence of god. I think we live in a material world we do not fully understand, but I have never seen or read a proof of god that holds. If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists by now. In fact, should science manage to prove god, it would not be god as commonly defined, but just another part of nature. > I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually > express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable. > > That is quite possible. But one almost must be careful to avoid relying on agnosticism as a crutch and thereby close off one's mind > to the possibility such evidence could exist. Yes! I think this is incredibly important and I worry about exactly that. However, my opinion of god is that the only way to know him is through subjective, uncommunicable experience. Without that and without faith, any proof will fail. With faith or with that deep experience, any proof can serve to fortify your belief. But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, and Karl Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using religion as a crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your experience. Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to an object and closing him off. I like how you point out that agnosticism might be another crutch. I will think more about that. On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so if you are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better avoid him. ;) But since this is a discussion on the border between science and faith (ok, I'm being dramatic here) I thought that the quote and some of the things he writes about was fitting. > > Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without assuming the reality of the wave function and > it's superposed > > states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in > any branch can > > observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse. > > Well, based on what I have read, this is not settled. There are many > explanations and theories of which MWI is one. > > You say that, but if you are aware of any that account for operational quantum computers, neither I, nor David Deutch are aware of > any. Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to articles that say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know myself, and you have probably found them yourself. So here I have to stop. However, is Deutsch the only guy? I am certain each interpretation has their champion and I amcertain Deutsch happens to be a champion of MWI. > Deutsch believes that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound. He is nearly alone in this conviction, > though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be > evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation. ?Once there are actual quantum computers,? Deutsch said to me, ?and a > journalist can go to the actual labs and ask how does that actual machine work, the physicists in question will then > either talk some obfuscatory nonsense, or will explain it in terms of parallel universes. Which will be newsworthy. Many > Worlds will then become part of our culture. Really, it has nothing to do with making the computers. But psychologically > it has everything to do with making them.? > > You might point to people who shy away from this challenge/question, but you won't find anyone advocating or reasoning from a > position of one of these other interpretations *explaining* quantum computers/Shor's algorithm working, which was experimentally done > back in 2001:?https://www.nature.com/articles/414883a Well it does say believes, and I also think he sounds a bit dismissive or arrogant. I could say that he speaks obfuscatory nonsense, and in fact, the equations are obfuscatory nonsense, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, what he thinks is obfuscatory nonsense, might have meaning, just that he doesn't understand it. But, again, I concede that this is far above my level, so I, at least, won't judge. I do still hold the opinion that there are many other people who are equally arrogant and faithful to their own interpretation. > On wikipedia, under quantum mechanies, I find the following > interpretations: > > ? ? ?Bayesian Consistent histories Copenhagen de Broglie?Bohm Ensemble Hidden-variable > ? ? ? ? ?Local Many-worlds Objective collapse Quantum logic Relational Transactional > > of which MWI is one, and that it is far from settled which one of these > is the correct one. > > It is called an interpretation, but I do not consider it one, which is why I abbreviate it as MW rather than MW. Here are some > further quotes which I hope will strengthen my case: I'm not convinced that the most profitable way to continue this is to amass quotes for various positions. > David Deutsch says of?MW: "It is not in fact an ?interpretation? of quantum theory at all, any more than dinosaurs are an > ?interpretation? of the fossil record. It is simply what quantum mechanics is. ?The only astonishing thing is that that?s still > controversial,? Deutsch says. To me, it is not interesting what Deutsch says, it is more interesting what Deutsch explains. If Deutsch is not able to explain it in a way that makes the majority accept it, then that is a failing of Deutsch. > > Also: "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description > of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger.? Cynicism and anger I do not like. Incomprehension on the other hand, I can fully embrace. Again, if he cannot explain it in a way to make it comprehensible it is on him. But anger and cynicism he does not deserve, there I support him. > But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past each > other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =) > > Yes, some progress, I hope. :-) My biggest insight so far is how complex and ground breaking the subject matter is, and how little I know. But I also think, looking at your quotes, that there is a lot of emotions and ego involved when the giants are debating this, and that is sad. > What is the suicide rate among MWI proponents? As for using statistics > beyond this world, I think we already touched on that a few emails back. > > I am aware of one case where someone believing in many worlds took their own life. It was Hugh Everett's daughter: > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Many_Worlds_of_Hugh_Everett_III/dqgqPjqIyJoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Please%20sprinkle%20me%20in%20 > some%20nice%20body%20of%20water%E2%80%A6or%20the%20garbage%2C%20maybe%20that%20way%20I'll%20end%20up%20in%20the%20correct%20paralle > l%20universe%20to%20meet%20up%20w%2F%20Daddy.&pg=PT393&printsec=frontcover Tragic. =( Wouldn't that be a nightmare if MWI became the norm, if that increased? > Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one day--when I'm old and crazy." The man has a great sense of humour! =) > Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very consistent! =) > > I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your agnosticism. Thank you Jason, and thank you for the great idea of the risk of being too agnostic! > Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) > > Humans had no answer to this generally, until rather recently. Agains, Russell Standish, and Markus Muller have worked out a basis > for Occam's Razor, from ensemble type theories. That is, they explain not only why the universe has something like a Shrodinger > equation behind it, but also why the simplest laws tend to be the right ones. Why do they say "tend" and not "always"? > > physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave. > > But we can never know what anything "is" except our own consciousness. I > think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a > material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world. > > A platonic world can be shown to explain the appearance of a material world. It is thus a simpler theory than material world?+ > platonic world, it is simply: platonic world. Or simply the material world? Or simply nothing at all? The null set? > Using simplicity of matter as an argument to rule out idealism, is an application of metaphysical laws (assuming a metaphysical > principle that favors simplicity) this is why I asked if you believed in such a heuristic. I think most people assume it, and operate > by it, but do not generally stop and wonder about the source of this heuristic, and why it works. I think it goes back to what we discussed about doubting everything and degrees of certainty. But occams razor cuts many ways, especially if you leave the realm of computation and equations. > But no, I am not 100% sure of that. And yes, based on what we've > discussed so far, do not see how anything about MWI could _currently_ > move it from a theory to something which would fit well in with our > current ways of predicting events. > > I hope have hope that you will. :-) That's the beauty of the agnostic position. Maybe I will! ;) > As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the > interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll > insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known and > when he or they can be used to make testable predictions. > > But isn't this inconsistent with your strong bet on materialism? What proof do you have that lets you ascribe a near certainty to > materialism, but deny the same could be done for MW? The fact that it hurts when I get punched in the face, at the same time, it does not hurt when someone in the other world tries to punch me in the face. > Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and > eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain > interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually > computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the > human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols. > > Do you believe that the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is either '0' or '1'? Or would you say it is a meaningless question because no > one in this universe could ever determine which it was? Well, to be honest, yes, outside the scope of this discussion I do consider the question meaningless. ;) If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty meaningless question. > What then, if I told you, there was some other larger universe, where people there had computed it, and determined which it was. > Would that mean they have different mathematical truths there, than we have here? I think that question is meaningless if there is no bi-directional flow of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, as fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless. > >? ? ? ?I'm no expert, but > >? ? ? ?I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we > >? ? ? ?interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the > >? ? ? ?concept is meaningless. > > > > There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this universe. This follows from the fact that there > are systems > > of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable universe. > > See my previous reply. > > I have heard people argue for ultrafinitism before, but I think it leads to inconsistencies. Most things we have proven in > mathematics would be false, if there were not infinite numbers. > For example, the proof that there are infinite primes would be false, under ultrafinitism. If Pi's digits do not go on forever, then > e^(2Pi*i) would not equal 1, but some other number. If it is not 1, then all of mathematics breaks down due to the principle of > explosion (see:?https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#The_Foundational_Crisis ) I don't see how that would follow from my position. We have the concepts, formulas, we perform calculations, and we can reason about infinity, but at the end of the day, it is just a language and activity in the brain of a being in the material world. Without us, all mathematical truths are meaningless. They only exist when we interpret them. This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have happened unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;) Best regards, Daniel > > Best, > > Jason > ? > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason? > > > > > > > >? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?Daniel > > > > > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Hello Stuart, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of > cutting > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? edge physics. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? You say that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax > because > >? ? ? ?you are > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?already > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?immortal. You > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?don't need to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if > not > >? ? ? ?infinite > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?numbers of, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?you > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?strewn about > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? multiverse. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses > >? ? ? ?supported by > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?proof or > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?is itone > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of many > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?interpretations of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? current theories? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that > the > >? ? ? ?probability > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?there's > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?only > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?one > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?universe > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(with one kind of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?This is as close to proof as anything science can provide. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Best regards, Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Stuart LaForge > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This is a crucial point, for those of us > interested in > >? ? ? ?uploading, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?so I > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?think we > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?should > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?really > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would > you > >? ? ? ?please > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?explain > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?further? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Could you also please explain the comment about > >? ? ? ?continuity and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not-discontinuity > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?being > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same thing? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ben > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From avant at sollegro.com Sat Sep 16 00:23:30 2023 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 17:23:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) Message-ID: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> Forwarded to the list for John Clark: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) Date: 2023-09-14 10:22 From: BillK via extropy-chat To: Extropy Chat Cc: BillK > One of the main criticisms of the MWI is its lack of testability and > falsifiability. Since the theory posits the existence of an > infinitenumber of parallel universes, That is incorrect. MWI does not postulate the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, instead it deduces they must exist by using the one and only assumption that it does make, namely that Schrodinger's equation means what it says. Hugh Everett didn't wake up one morning and say to himself, gee it would be cool if there were a lot of different universes, I think I'll invent a theory that has an infinite number of them. Instead he asked himself what would happen if he took Schrodinger's Equation seriously and assumed it really meant what it said, and when he did that those other universes just popped up. The only way to get rid of them is to change Schrodinger's equation as GRW has done, or to do what Copenhagen has done and say that for some vaguely defined reason a vaguely defined thing called an "observer" doesn't need to obey Schrodinger's Equation. Many Worlds is just bare bones, no nonsense Quantum Mechanics with no silly bells and whistles pasted on. The only assumption Many Worlds makes is that the mathematics of the equation means what it says. > each with different outcomes, it becomes impossible to experimentally > verify or disprove this claim. Many Worlds logically explains a lot of stuff and yes it seems bizarre to us, but any successful quantum interpretation is bound to be bizarre, there's just no way quantum mechanics will ever seem intuitive, it will always be odd but odd is not the same as paradoxical. And Many Worlds is consistent with all of the correct predictions of quantum mechanics . Yes some predictions it makes have not yet been proven but it is hardly alone in that. For example: we can't see things further away than 13.8 billion light years because there hasn't been enough time for light to reach us, and as near as we can tell on the largest scale space is flat, if there is any curvature at all it must be less than 0.4% so you'd need to go over 200 times 13.8 billion light years to form an unbounded sphere; but does anyone really believe there is nothing beyond 13.8 billion light years? If so then then they must also believe the Earth really is the center of the universe and 13.8 billion light years away there is a wall with absolutely positively NOTHING on the other side. And Many Worlds is falsifiable. For example, right now there are experiments underway in an attempt to prove that the GRW theory of objective quantum wave collapse makes predictions that Many Worlds does not, if they are successful it will prove that Everett was dead wrong, it's as simple as that. GRW claims that Schrodinger's equation is incomplete and that another very complex term needs to be added to it because it's the only way they could think of to get rid of all those worlds that for some reason they dislike, there was simply no other reason to add that extra term. With this new term Schrodinger's equation is no longer completely deterministic because a random element is added such that the larger the wave function is (the more particles it has) the more likely the quantum wave function will objectively collapse. They carefully tuned their very complex extra term inserted into Schr?dinger's equation in just such a way that, because an individual electron is so small the probability of you being able to observe one objectively collapse is almost but not quite zero; but the probability of you NOT observing something as large as a baseball NOT collapsing is also almost, but not quite, zero. Despite heroic efforts. up to the present day nobody has found a speck of experimental evidence in support of the GRW theory of objective quantum wave collapse, and until and unless they do Many Worlds must be the preferred theory according to Occam's razor because it makes fewer assumptions, it has no need to complicate matters by adding that extra term to Schrodinger's equation. But GRW is not the only or even the most popular competitor to Many Worlds, that honor would have to go to the Copenhagen interpretation, and there is certainly no way to falsify that, but back in 1986 in his book "The Ghost in the Atom" David Deutsch proposed another way to falsify Everett's Many Worlds; the experiment would be difficult to perform but Deutsch argues that is not Many Worlds fault, the reason it's so difficult is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum properties. In Deutsch's experiment, to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds other than this one, a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a metal plate that has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The quantum computer has detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. The quantum mind now signs a document for each and every electron saying it has observed the electron and knows which slit it went through. It is very important that the document does NOT say which slit the electron went through, it only says that it went through one and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. Now just before the electron hits the plate the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy the memory of what slits the electrons went through, but all other memories including all the documents remain undamaged. After the document is signed the electron continues on its way and hits the photographic plate. Then after thousands of electrons have been observed and all which-way information has been erased, develop the photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then the Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but this one and the conventional interpretation is correct. Deutsch is saying that in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one universe when the electrons hit the photographic film because the two universes will no longer be different (even though they had different histories), but their influence will still be felt. In the merged universe you'll see indications that the electron went through slot X only and indications that it went through slot Y only, and that's what causes interference. I know that what I said in the above is a fair representation of what Deutsch was saying because some years ago I wrote to him about this and he said it was an accurate paraphrase. A theory is not judged on the basis of what predictions it makes that have neither been confirmed nor falsified experimentally, instead they are judged by how well they conform to experiments that HAVE been performed, and in Many Worlds case it conforms to every physics experiment that has ever been made up to the present day. > Another criticism revolves around the issue of probability. In the MWI, > probabilities are assigned to different outcomes based on their > relative frequency across all possible universes. However, this > approach raises questions about how probabilities can be meaningfully > defined when there are an infinite number of universes. Critics argue > that without a clear framework for assigning probabilities, the MWI > fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena. You're talking about deriving the Born Rule, that the probability of finding a particle at point X is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the particle's quantum wave function given by Schrodinger's Equation. First of all it has been proven mathematically that if you want unitarity, that is all the probabilities are positive real numbers, and all of them add up to exactly 1 (because *something* is certain to happen) then the Born Rule is the only one that works. So the real question is, since the quantum wave function is completely deterministic why do we need probability at all? I'll explain that with the help of Schr?dinger's cat. The cat has been in a sealed box for one hour with the radioactive atom with a half life of one hour, if the atom has decayed an automatic mechanism will release poison gas and kill the cat, if the atom has decayed then the cat will be fine. I know that the world, and me with it, has split and that in one world the cat is dead and when I open the box I will find the cat is dead, and the other world the cat is alive and when I open the box I will find the cat is alive, BUT until I open that box and look inside I would have no way of knowing which world I'm in. But perhaps you're wondering how if there are infinitely many worlds how can more complex probabilities like 1/6 exist. I cut a rope that is 7 inches long, which contains an infinite number of points that is even greater than the infinity of the integers, into 1 piece that is 2 inches long, and contains a continuous infinite number of points, and into 5 pieces that are 1 inch long, which also contains a continuous infinite number of points. I place all 6 pieces into a hat, close my eyes and pick out one piece at random. I can say with confidence that there are 5 chances out of 6 that I will pick out a string that is 1 inch long, and one chance out of six I will pick out a string that is 2 inches long, this despite the fact that all the strings have the same infinite number of points. By way of analogy we can say that all Everett type worlds that are so similar that they don't make a substantial difference to your subjective experience are part of the same string regardless of how many worlds there are, even an infinite number of them. > Furthermore, the MWI faces challenges in explaining macroscopic > observations and classical behavior. While it may be able to account > for quantum phenomena at the microscopic level, it struggles to explain > why we observe a classical world with definite outcomes rather than a > superposition of possibilities. If two worlds split because a tiny force made them very very slightly different in the submicroscopic realm then it is not unrealistic to think there is a reasonable possibility that things could change again and become identical again, but once the change reaches the macroscopic level the probability of ever going back to the original state is so ridiculously small it can be ignored. > Additionally, some critics question the philosophical implications of > the MWI. The theory suggests that every possible outcome exists in a > separate universe, leading to an infinite number of parallel realities. If you assume that space is infinite, or even just very very large, those philosophical implications remain even if Hugh Everett turns out to be completely wrong. Your body contains a finite number of atoms so it can only be in a finite number of quantum states, it follows that if you traveled out far enough into space you would find your exact doppelg?nger that was in the same quantum state that you are in, physicist MaxTegmark has even calculated how many meters you'd have to travel before you had a good chance of finding him, it turns out to be a 1 followed by a hundred thousand trillion trillion zeros. That's big but no nearer to being infinite than the number 1 is. > This idea raises philosophical concerns about personal identity and > consciousness. Critics argue that it is difficult to reconcile our > subjective experience with the notion that there are countless versions > of ourselves in different universes. If there are an infinite number of worlds and an infinite number of subjective states then you could make a one to one correspondence between worlds and subjective states; and you could still do so if the number of worlds and the number of states is not infinite but just an astronomically large number to an astronomically large power. > Moreover, the MWI has been criticized for its complexity and lack of > simplicity. Occam's razor, Occam's razor is about the simplicity of assumptions not the simplicity of outcomes. The only assumption that MWI makes is that the world is described by a quantum state, which is an element in vector space, and the quantum state evolves through time in accordance with the Schr?dinger equation. That's it. All those other worlds are derived (not assumed) from that simple assumption. In order to get rid of those many worlds other interpretations must monkey around with Schrodinger's equation and make it non-deterministic or add additional assumptions, such as vaguely defined stuff about collapsing the wave function and an insistence that observers don't obey the same rules of quantum mechanics that none observers do even though both are made up of the same sort of particles, all of which obey the same laws of quantum mechanics. John K Clark From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 02:01:21 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:01:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: <01bd01d9e811$81dd91d0$8598b570$@rainier66.com> References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> <8827305c-c0e1-41ce-7bc2-b588b7b91ab3@swisscows.email> <01bd01d9e811$81dd91d0$8598b570$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 1:17?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: snip > Bill don?t worry, you aren?t the first or only one who has done that. I have a friend who goes to those AA meetings, in spite of his never having been a drinker or devourer of recreational pharmaceuticals (Mormon to the core.) He wants to help those who are hoping to break out of the cycle. I wrote this a long time ago. It still might provide some insight "Knowledge of the deep-seated and highly evolved brain mechanisms involved in drug and cult addiction also permits analysis of how existing treatments work. For example, the rewards model derived above indicates that twelve-step programs work not because of the specific steps involved, but because they provide attention rewards from the group--substituting an endogenous "natural" chemical reward for a exogenous chemical reward. Success in getting out of the programs without returning to the exogenous chemical reward would be expected to depend on resuming relationships that provide attention rewards or forming new relations. Some people recovering from drugs or alcohol stay with the programs indefinitely making the recovery program their ?family? or ?tribe? and a long-term source of attention rewards." /Sex_Drugs_and_Cults_An_evolutionary_psychology_perspective_on_why_and_how_cult_memes_get_a_d rug_like_hold_on_people_and_what_might_be_ done_to_mitigate_the_effects > He once commented that he would estimate about a quarter to perhaps a third of attendees showed up drunk or stoned. Or both. Wow. Never been to one of those, but the descriptions I have heard did not mention people showing up drunk or stoned. > I am constantly reminded that I don?t live in the real world. > No kidding. Keith > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 02:10:17 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:10:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> Message-ID: Many worlds has the same problem that "are we living in a simulation?" has. >From the inside, there is no way to tell. >From Pigs in Cyberspace (Hans Moravec who used to post here) "The very moment we are now experiencing may actually be (almost certainly is) such a distributed mental event, and most likely is a complete fabrication that never happened physically. "Alas, there is no way to sort it out from our perspective: we can only wallow in the scenery." Keith Keith From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 16 03:18:16 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:18:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pun of the day In-Reply-To: References: <011101d9e435$85dc30a0$919491e0$@rainier66.com> <9b107331-48a3-141b-6d90-3170e945fe35@swisscows.email> <182284a8-4e81-c4c9-bea5-960f0f3656e0@swisscows.email> <00fc01d9e5c8$ea5a59f0$bf0f0dd0$@rainier66.com> <011501d9e5cc$07e27130$17a75390$@rainier66.com> <004b01d9e7d0$977c9b80$c675d280$@rainier66.com> <0f0b8a4c-93a1-9a63-4123-f7a3d44e638d@swisscows.email> <00af01d9e7ea$8b0c1a50$a1244ef0$@rainier66.com> <8827305c-c0e1-41ce-7bc2-b588b7b91ab3@swisscows.email> <01bd01d9e811$81dd91d0$8598b570$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000301d9e84c$70256e00$50704a00$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson ... >>... He once commented that he would estimate about a quarter to perhaps a third of attendees showed up drunk or stoned. Or both. >...Wow. Never been to one of those, but the descriptions I have heard did not mention people showing up drunk or stoned... Keith I have wondered if his estimate was too high because he himself is a brilliant guy (CalTech PhD in math) so his AA meetings were his first real world contact with real people. To him, some sober but slow-witted people might appear stoned or drunk because of the contrast with his crowd. In any such meeting, there would be those who were there because of a judge's orders (or perhaps spouse's orders) with no intentions of giving up their favorite chemical. Another fun possibility: they went to AA to give up alcohol (doctor's orders) but the doctor didn't say anything about weed or crack. >>... I am constantly reminded that I don?t live in the real world. >...No kidding. >...Keith Hey, it?s the field I worked in for my entire career. Back in the old days, one couldn't even get in the door if one was a stoner. It was the nature of the biz. Even on travel after work, office guys gather at a restaurant, I don't recall anyone ever having more than one drink. spike From avant at sollegro.com Sat Sep 16 03:30:13 2023 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:30:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On 2023-09-15 05:29, Jason Resch wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 12:16 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat > wrote: >> This means that the counterfactual photon caused a counterfactual > .> bomb >> to explode, destroying itself in the process, and preventing it from >> >> interfering with the observed photon. This causes the photon to only >> >> take one path, end up at detector B, and thereby prove that the bomb >> is >> live and not a dud. It would not make sense that the photon would >> not >> blow up the bomb and not interfere with itself unless something >> happened >> to the other photon. Stuff that does not happen should not be able >> to >> cause stuff to happen here. Unless the stuff that doesn't happen >> here >> happens in another universe and that is what causes stuff to happen >> here > > How is this experiment any different from any single photons > interferometer experiment (where we say, replace the bomb with a red > or blue stained piece of glass) and use photons from a red light > laser, and use photon arrival locations to infer the color of the > glass placed in the path of one of the photons? It's not different. The bomb detector was a thought experiment, but since physicists didn't want actual bombs going off in their lab, they confirmed the predictions of the thought experiment using an experiment very similar to one you discuss here. > It's less explosive than a bomb (just an explosion of some IR photons > after the photon gets absorbed by the blue glass). But the outcomes > are the same. > > It also seems to be equivalent to the two slit single electrons > experiment where we put a detector at only one slit and don't observe > the electron there. Yes, the two-slit single-electron experiment with a detector at one slit is pretty close to the bomb tester > I haven't seen people say before that these experiments confirm MW. I wouldn't say confirm, but merely add credence to, like a larger posterior probability. Incidentally, the authors of the original experiment say by way of explanation on https://www.tau.ac.il/~vaidman/lvhp/m28.pdfpage 993 of their 1993 paper: "In the MWI there is no collapse and all "branches" of the photon's state (5) are real. These three branches correspond to three different "worlds." In one world the photon is scattered by the object, and in two others it does not. Since all worlds take place in the physical universe, we cannot say that nothing has "touched" the object. We get information about the object without touching it in one world, but we "pay" the price of interacting with the object in the other world." https://www.tau.ac.il/~vaidman/lvhp/m28.pdf > They do, of course, confirm a superposition of particle positions, but > that has never been the issue with CI. CI accepts the superposition, > it only adds that it disappears after an observation is made, whatever > that may be, even if the observation happens to be "not observing an > electron go through the right slit" or not observing an explosion of > IR photons in the blue stained glass. Yes but how CI and MWI resolve the superposition is at the crux of their difference. Both interpretations agree that the superposition of a quantum 6-sided die would be a linear sum of the states 1 through 6: |1> + |2> + |3> + |4> + |5> + |6> The difference happens when a measurement is made. Lets say you roll the die and observe a "6". In CI, that means the terms |1> + |2> + |3> + |4> + |5> of the superposition, which were actual states a moment ago, are destroyed or simply cease to exist. In MWI, however, when you make an observation, the superposition simply separates into its component states with each sorting into their own timelines: A|1>, B|2>, C|3>, D|4>, E|5>, and F|6>. So if you observe a "6", you discover that you are observer "F" in the F timeline. > So I am curious what you see in the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb test that > implies MW. (If it's anything above and beyond the other superposition > affirming experiments I mention above). The Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester and the experiments you mention above are not affirming superpositions, they are affirming that they are superpositions of real states. Only something real can cause something to happen in the real world. If something counterfactual is causing observable events in the real world, that counterfactual thing has to real too. It's just real somewhere else. Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 16 03:39:01 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 20:39:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ancient cultural reference: piiiiigs in spaaaaace... RE: Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> Message-ID: <000801d9e84f$561e0a50$025a1ef0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat ... >...From Pigs in Cyberspace (Hans Moravec who used to post here) ... Keith _______________________________________________ Keith the younger among us (which is nearly everyone here except BillW, you and me) won't understand the ancient reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU0rj6drXdI Hey we college kids thought this was hilarious back in the olden days. The Muppet Show was on Friday nights. It was great fun: Muppets Friday evening, then Saturday Night Live the next night, then back to studies again. spike From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 05:08:01 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 01:08:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:51 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening Jason, > Good morning Daniel, > I have a feeling that this dialogue is slowly getting to a stand still, > at least from my side. I do not think I have the knowledge to interpret > or understand what you are saying, (as seen below where I thought you > were talking about quantum mechanics but in fact you were talkingabout > ensemble-type theories) It was my fault for the confusing example. My only point, which I think you agreed to an extent with in the other thread, is that if a theory makes multiple predictions, (like general relativity), and we test many of them and find the ones we have tested to be true, then it increases our confidence in the theory and thereby increases our confidence in the theory itself. If that theory makes other predictions which we have not yet tested, then we have *some confidence* in those untested predictions. Now there are a number of theories in science which we have tested and confirmed, which we have obtained direct observational evidence for, which, as it happens, also predict elements of reality beyond what we can see in this universe. Some, like eternal inflation, predict other big bangs, each forming it's own own "bubble universe". Others, like special relativity, predict the existence of past and future points in time (which exists eternally and concurrently along with this present time). Still others, like the theory of an expanding universe, predict untold trillions of galaxies we will never see or receive light from. Science is full of theories that predict things we cannot interact with. These are nonetheless predictions of theories we have tested, and obtained observational evidence for. It seems we have two choices: 1. Reject these theories (for predicting things we cannot see or test). 2. Accept these theories (along with their implication that reality is bigger than what we can see from our present vantage point). I don't think we should reject these theories on account of them implying reality is bigger than what we can see. Why should we suppose we should be in a position to survey all of reality? and as the nr of books and links is increasing > that I would have to go through, to provide you with good answers, I > find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. And that is > not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) Ok, they > might be better than the math and physics skills of the average person, > but not anywhere close to the skills of this list. > I think you may be selling yourself short. We all begin somewhere. I did not major in math or physics, I've just tried to read a lot as science as a subject has always interested me. Much of what I have learned has come from discussions with others on lists like this one. I also don't think any special math or science background is required to understand most of the arguments used for different QM interpretations. > So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I would not > be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything you are > saying. > I would be happy to answer any questions, privately or on the list, you might have if anything I say requires additional explanation. > But, let's see. I'll have a look below, and let's see how it goes, but I > feel like I'm approaching my limit in terms of knowledge and time, and > as Wittgenstein said... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be > silent". ;) > I would make one amendment to Wittgenstein: "Should you venture where one cannot speak, ask questions!" I'm sure if things I say are unclear to you, there are others on this list it is unclear to also. > On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Yes, so far, so good. I'm not debating (or at least that was not my > > intention) QM here. I'm debating interpretations of qm which in > some > > cases I think go too far, and in my opinion, some interpretations > are > > unscientific and can never be proved, other we _might_ be able to > prove, > > but actually doing so, lies far, far ahead in the future. > > > > Note: I am not discussing QM as a theory here. I am discussing a theory > that *predicts QM*. (I know this is confusing given the other > > discussions of interpretations of QM below, but this has nothing to do > with QM as a theory, this has to do with a more general > > underlying ensemble theory, which can predict and account for why the > universe happens to be quantum mechanical in the first place. > > QM cannot do this.) > > Ahhh... this I know nothing about. I misunderstood. So that would > probably mean a new beginning for me and a lot of reading I suspect. > I would guess this work is so new and esoteric they it remains unknown to 99.9% of physicists. But the point is really simple: No one knew why nature is quantum mechanical. It appeared one of the most profound mysteries, it tormented many of the founders of the theory. Wheeler spent his whole life trying in vain to understand why it was this way. And only very recently have a few researchers offered a plausible answer. The one thing their explanations share in common is they are ultimate ensemble-type theories (an infinite comprehensive reality where all possibilities exist). As it turns out, if you start with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is quantum mechanical. > > That's one interpretation among many, and not without its critique > and > > claims that it cannot be proven etc. Just adding that, but yes, > MWI is > > the theory that you find most probable, so let's focus on that one. > > > > I am not talking about QM. I am talking about the work of Russell > Standish, Markus P. Muller, and Bruno Marchal, all of which have > > used ensemble-type theories to predict aspects of quantum mechanics as > traits we should expect to observe of our universe, if the > > ensemble theory is true. For example, please see Appendix D of this > book: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf on page > > 217 where he derives the Shrodinger equation from first principles. This > the point I am making, I am not talking about QM or its > > interpretations here, but rather *the more fundamental theory* that > explains/predicts/accounts for QM. > > > > When you understand I am talking about this more fundamental theory, > then you will see my point regarding how we can have > > observational evidence that supports the conclusion of a reality beyond > this one. > > Here we have the problem. In my current state, with so many years > between me now, and me in university, this means very little to me. > Therefore I cannot comment on what you say. I would like to, but I > cannot. Very sorry. =( > No worries, I can give you a one line summary: Starting from the assumption that every possible observation exists, you can derive the Shrodinger equation (the key equation of quantum mechanics). > > I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, > it is > > up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do > not > > find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable > > intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to > > metaphysical chaos. > > > > Of course. I agree observation evidence is crucial. My point is that we > have it, that is, we have observed our universe to obey the > > Shrodinger equation, and this is evidence for *the more fundamental > theory* which predicts a universe governed by the Shrodinger > > equation. > > I think this might enter Tegmark territory, and my opinion still stands > unchanged. We have observed equations predict events. We then > extrapolate things we will (most likely) never be able to prove. They > will forever remain extrapolations. > Every time we use any physical theory to make a prediction, we are performing an extrapolation. There are an infinite number of potential extrapolations any given theory can make. But we only ever test a finite number (that is, an infinitesimal fraction) of them. If we are confident in a theory, why can't we be confident in the untested predictions of that theory? > Lawrence post on the extropolis list struck a chord with me, and I think > it perhaps better illustrates my view of the difference between proof > and extrapolations: > > "People who go down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations find > themselves in a nest of thorns and nettles. No matter what > interpretation it is the attempt to make it something derivable or the > single only consistent interpretation leads into a growing > mire of complexity that does not close. Carroll and others working on MWI > are clearly entering this. Other interpretations similarly > hit this reef. The best interpretation is no interpretation. All > interpretations are attempts to make quantum mechanics transduced > into our ordinary way of thinking, but QM is logically different in a way > that makes this impossible. As Wittgenstein put it, "That > which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." That is the best > advice with respect to quantum interpretations." > This is one reason why I stress that MW is not an interpretation. It's just the raw math and equations of QM, accepted as true. You don't need to add any further interpretation of them. > The fun coincidence here is that I thought of that quote before going to > bed, and then woke up and read it in Lawrence message. Maybe information is > leaking between universes after all? ;) > Interesting. > Regardless, this illustrates something I thought a lot about, and that > is moving from equations to verbal descriptions. That aspect of > theoretical physics, moving from nrs and equations, to putting it into > words, has always fascinated me, and I would not be surprised if that > might perhaps be a source of error and confusion. Our words and > languagesare not mathematical and number based, so maybe a distortion > does take place when we translate between the two languages? > I don't really see that as the issue here. CI says the universe does not obey the equations of QM always. It's not merely using different words to explain the same math, it's proposing that the math of the theory is wrong, and that reality is governed by different math than is it expressed by the equations of QM. This different math would describe the process of observation and measurement which would say when the universe stops obeying QM during wave function collapse. But no advocate of CI, other than perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would be. If advocates of CI did propose alternate mathematical descriptions for their theory, it would be clear that MW and Copenhagen are different theories. CI refuses to make such specifications which keeps the waters muddied, and maintains the illusion that no possible test can be done to distinguish between them. > > > Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%. > > > Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%. > > > > Well, I think that's the problem here. Your confidence is 95%, my > > confidence is not. > > > > This is just an example. In any case, nothing prevents us from > performing the same objective Bayesian calculation and arriving at the > > same result. > > But nothing prevents us from not doing it either. The one thing that > does help is observable evidence. And extrapolating to other universes > and other realms I think definitely makes that more difficult. The tool > "breaks down" so to speak. > Can we not reach agreement that relativity implies that other points in time exist, even though we can never travel to these other times to confirm their existence? > > And since there is no proof either way, and since > > there are many competing theories, it currently remains a theory > and the > > confidence varies wildly depending on who you ask. > > > > You can work backwards to find the different assumptions people are > using to arrive upon different estimates of confidence. These > > aren't unsolvable problems. > > Some might be, other might not. Using the same starting points, people > do end up in different locations. That is a fact, but the good news is > that the scientific method and time will correct that. > Yes, when people disagree they can check their assumptions to make sure they're the same or find where they differ. If they are the same but they have different conclusions, then they can check the steps of their math or deduction to see where one person diverged. > As I said, when smart people created and performed the experiments that > prove MWI (or any other interpretation) beyond doubt, I'll gladly join > the choire if I understand the proof. If it is not possible to produce a > proof that I can understand, I'll withhold judgement until I do, or > until there is a comfortable consensus, although that can be deadly too. > I think there already are proofs you could understand. Given your technical background, and interest in cryptography, I would start with the ability of quantum computers to factor RSA keys. All you need consider is Deutsch's question: when a quantum computer factors a number that requires the evaluation of 10^500 unique states, where is that computation being performed (when our universe has just 10^80 atoms)? The right answer comes out, but where did it come from? How was it computed? > > It seems to me, that > > every theory has his highly educated and intelligent champion and > all > > are equally good at arguing their point to me as a non-physicist > with > > limited math skills. > > > > That is perhaps the most important lesson of all. Some of the smartest > people in the world often disagree, which implies the smartest > > people in the world are often wrong. > > Of course they are. By definition not all quantum mechanical > interpretations can all be right, so there will be a lot of very smart > and disappointed people, once a winner emerges, and then I guess we'll > see a paradigm shift perhaps? > > > But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is > performed, that > > brings final evidence for MWI, > > > > that would be filtered through experts, > > replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then > shoot up > > to close to 100%. > I think you may be overly optimistic about how quickly these things happen. It took 100 years for people to accept Copernicus's idea after his book was published. People do not expand their ontologies readily. > > > I think you would still have to wait for the CI adherents to die off, as > Planck suggested: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle > > As it is, I think the existence of working quantum computers already > constitutes such proof for MW. Bell's experiment too, is proof > > of MW, if you believe special relativity is true and nothing travels > faster than light. > > Nice methodology. ;) I've seen other proposals for other experiments > which have or have not proven other interpretations. I am interested to see these if you can provide links. So we'll see. As > you said in an earlier message, the MWI:ers are increasing, but > Copenhagen is still in the lead. On the other hand, science is not a > democracy, so all it takes is one person being right and one proof. This > is why I do not like my own approach of looking at the comfortable > consensus. But, not being a theoretical physicist, what else can such a > man do? =( > Yes this is a big problem. There's so many specialized disciplines an not enough time to become proficient in more than a m small few of them. Perhaps the best bet for people on our position is to read books by physicists for popular audiences. Read two books by two prominent representatives from opposing sides of an issue, and weigh the strengths of their arguments. > > From a philosophical point of view, you are correct of course, and > we > > all end up in solipsism if everything is doubted. When it comes to > what > > makes me believe in bigbang or gravity with a high degree of > confidence > > rather than the MWI, I'll lean on the consensus of the scientific > > community, since I am not a scientist, and yes, shame on me for > doing > > that. ;) It is sad that science has become so specialized that > that is a > > necessary shortcut for non-scientists. I'll pay the price of being > late > > to the party, and I think that is a price worth paying. > > > > It is good to acknowledge this. So then, do I take it that your > objection to MW is not that we cannot see them, but that there is not > > yet a consensus of scientists that accepts them? > > Yes and no. A time proven consensus of scientists will definitely tilt > me in favour of the concept. The other thing which annoys me, and I know > you have tried to explain it, but I do not understand it, is that there > can be no bi-directional information flow between them. So to me, it > seems like a pointless theory. I wouldn't say it's pointless. I think understanding MW as an implication of QM was crucial to the conception and invention of quantum computers. Both Feynman and Deutsch believe in many worlds, and both contributed to their realization. I think your Tegmark book and my reply to > that page you quoted would probably be as far as I would be willing to > go. So I'm not in principle opposed to MWI due to any spiritual grounds, > and as you say, once a time tested consensus appears, I will be more > likely to accept that theory, and... I do hope that by then, the > explanations and experiments which will have created this consensus will > have been translated into language and explanation which someone like me > can understand. > Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" book. I might recommend that if you want to see his best attempt at explaining it. > > But that is an empty or nonsensical term if you talk with someone > who does > > not believe in god. It only amounts to language games. > > > > What's the difference, in your view, between math, logic, reason, > philosophy, and language games? Or do you see them as all > > equivalent? > > No, I do not see them as equivalent. Instead of me defining the > difference between these 5 terms, take me to the next step of your > argument, and I'll take it from there. > Sorry I was unclear. I did not mean to compare all five, but rather to ask to compare (math, logic, reason, and philosophy) vs. language games. Most nominalists say, for example, that math is only a language game. So I was curious if this was the basis for saying the same of other fields, such as theology. > > Not to any > > knowledge about the world. You can say infinite amounts of > statements > > about god, but at the end of the day, they will yield nothing. > > > > I disagree. We can reason about the valid properties of objects whose > existence we are uncertain of. For example, we don't know if > > there are odd "perfect numbers", but we can say much about the > properties such numbers must have, should they exist. I think theology > > is such a science. We can reason, for example, about whether omnipotence > or omniscience are mutually consistent properties to have, > > or even whether they are individually consistent with themselves. If we > find them to not be consistent, then we can form a statement > > like "If omniscience is inconsistent, then if God exists, God is not > omniscient." > > Well, since I do not believe in god, theology for me is just wordplay. > There are an infinite number of possible conceptions of God. So I do not know what you mean when you say you do not believe in God. Many religions define God as the cause of existence. If you believe this universe has a cause then you believe in the God of these religions. Sikhs, among other religions, define God as truth. If you believe in Truth, then you believe in the god of the Sikhs. Hindus define God as Brahman, and Brahman is equivalent to Atman (consciousness). If you believe in consciousness then you believe in the god of the Hindus. Many religions define God as the creator of the world. If this universe is a simulation, then the universe has such a creator God. And so on... So the statement that one doesn't believe in God is rather empty, absent further specification. To me, it is meaningless. If you do believe in god, I fully respect > that, and of course it follows that theology is important to you. Since > I do not, my opinion is that it gives us nothing. > Science and rationality can be applied far more broadly than most are aware. It can penetrate questions and topics usually assumed to belong forever to the sphere of religion, such as questions like: why we exist, why we are here, the meaning of life, and what happens after we die, do we have free will, etc. It's not that theology is important to me, what's important is that science not shy away from any subject, including theology. Doing so would be a disservice to both science and religion. > > I think there is rational evidence of God*. > > (* For some definitions of God) > > > > For example, see these sections from my articles: > > * https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts > > * > https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife > > * https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God > > I think there is no rational evidence of god. You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of any? The two are very different statements. The first interpretation would serve to close one's mind to anything that make shake that believe. It would lead one to avoid reading the links I provided (to preserve that *atheistic* belief). The second interpretation would, on the other hand, encourage one to seek out such evidence and would lead one to read the links I provided (to test your *agnostic* belief and see if any such evidence is out there). I think we live in a > material world we do not fully understand, but I have never seen or read > a proof of god that holds. > God or gods (defined as beings of vastly greater capacity than us) fall out naturally in many theories: - Spatially infinite universes - Mathematical Platonism - Quantum Multiverse theories - String theory landscapes - Simulation Hypothesis - Technological Singularity You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can explain how it leads to beings that are superior to ourselves, and one's that can create reality (which they could exert compete control over), and moreover they can also "save souls" of any beings they might find. Any evidence we find that supports any of the above theories can be considered as adding evidence to the theory that God or gods exists. > If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists by now. > I doubt it. The evidence will be when you observe how this post will not convert any atheist on this list into a theist. If pressed, they will pick a specific definition of God, like "an old man in the clouds who cares about our what people do in their bedrooms" and thereby refute the existence of God. In fact, should science manage to prove god, it would not be god as > commonly defined, but just another part of nature. > > > I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually > > express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable. > > > > That is quite possible. But one almost must be careful to avoid relying > on agnosticism as a crutch and thereby close off one's mind > > to the possibility such evidence could exist. > > Yes! I think this is incredibly important and I worry about exactly > that. However, my opinion of god is that the only way to know him is > through subjective, uncommunicable experience. Without that and without > faith, any proof will fail. With faith or with that deep experience, any > proof can serve to fortify your belief. > What about the Gods that follow as implications of the theories I mention above? No subjective incommunicable experience is needed there. > But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, and Karl > Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using religion as a > crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your experience. > Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to an object > and closing him off. > Valid concerns. > I like how you point out that agnosticism might be another crutch. I > will think more about that. > :-) > On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so if you > are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better avoid him. > I don't think I've ever quite understood what essentialism is. ;) > > But since this is a discussion on the border between science and faith > (ok, I'm being dramatic here) I thought that the quote and some of the > things he writes about was fitting. > > > > Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation > without assuming the reality of the wave function and > > it's superposed > > > states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it > counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in > > any branch can > > > observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse. > > > > Well, based on what I have read, this is not settled. There are > many > > explanations and theories of which MWI is one. > > > > You say that, but if you are aware of any that account for operational > quantum computers, neither I, nor David Deutch are aware of > > any. > > Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to articles that > say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know myself, > and you have probably found them yourself. That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting to explain quantum computer not relying on MW. If you have seen these, please share them. So here I have to stop. > However, is Deutsch the only guy? He's just one of the more prominent living advocates of MW, given he designed the first quantum computer. Other well known living proponents are Sean Carroll and Max Tegmark. Among past physicists who advocated for it are Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Bryce DeWitt, Murray Gell-Mann, and Steven Weinberg. I am certain each interpretation has > their champion and I amcertain Deutsch happens to be a champion of MWI. > I am not aware of any equivalently prominent living champions of CI. Penrose might fall into this category, but his theory is something different from conventional CI, he proposes a quantum gravity effect that causes collapse. It is therefore a different theory than existing/accepted QM. People who subscribe to CI tend to be the people who don't really care about interpretational issues, and don't have a strong opinion on it. Therefore you don't find the "champions of it" as you might find for those who subscribe to "non-standard" interpretations. CI, being the standard, and what everyone was taught by their college professor, is just accepted at face value, without further consideration or question. > > Deutsch believes that quantum computing and Many Worlds are > inextricably bound. He is nearly alone in this conviction, > > though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the > construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be > > evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation. ?Once there are > actual quantum computers,? Deutsch said to me, ?and a > > journalist can go to the actual labs and ask how does that actual > machine work, the physicists in question will then > > either talk some obfuscatory nonsense, or will explain it in terms > of parallel universes. Which will be newsworthy. Many > > Worlds will then become part of our culture. Really, it has > nothing to do with making the computers. But psychologically > > it has everything to do with making them.? > > > > You might point to people who shy away from this challenge/question, but > you won't find anyone advocating or reasoning from a > > position of one of these other interpretations *explaining* quantum > computers/Shor's algorithm working, which was experimentally done > > back in 2001: https://www.nature.com/articles/414883a > > Well it does say believes, and I also think he sounds a bit dismissive > or arrogant. I could say that he speaks obfuscatory nonsense, and in > fact, the equations are obfuscatory nonsense, but I would give him the > benefit of the doubt. > He is only issuing the challenge: if you believe in a single universe, explain how quantum computers work. I don't find this challenge obfuscatory. > Likewise, what he thinks is obfuscatory nonsense, might have meaning, > just that he doesn't understand it. > The thing is no one is even offering this "obfuscatory nonsense". There's simply silence. The situation is analogous to asking a young-earth creationist for an explanation of dinosaur bones. Deutsch is pointing to the bones and asking: how could these bones exist if the world is only 6,000 years old? Here, Deutsch is pointing to a quantum computer and asking: how could it factor a 500-digit number if there is just one universe? > But, again, I concede that this is far above my level, It shouldn't be. His argument doesn't require understanding any math beyond exponents, namely that: 10^500 >> 10^80. so I, at least, > won't judge. I do still hold the opinion that there are many other > people who are equally arrogant and faithful to their own > interpretation. > If you listen to Deutsch you will find he doesn't have an arrogant demeanor. For example: https://youtu.be/Kj2lxDf9R3Y?si=4RPRMYLJ8wx3QK1I Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I hadn't seen before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been made when he was still writing Fabric of Reality: https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd > > On wikipedia, under quantum mechanies, I find the following > > interpretations: > > > > Bayesian Consistent histories Copenhagen de Broglie?Bohm > Ensemble Hidden-variable > > Local Many-worlds Objective collapse Quantum logic > Relational Transactional > > > > of which MWI is one, and that it is far from settled which one of > these > > is the correct one. > > > > It is called an interpretation, but I do not consider it one, which is > why I abbreviate it as MW rather than MW. Here are some > > further quotes which I hope will strengthen my case: > > I'm not convinced that the most profitable way to continue this is to > amass quotes for various positions. > Granted. I thought they would help explain why I don't call or consider MW to be an interpretation. > > David Deutsch says of MW: "It is not in fact an ?interpretation? of > quantum theory at all, any more than dinosaurs are an > > ?interpretation? of the fossil record. It is simply what quantum > mechanics is. ?The only astonishing thing is that that?s still > > controversial,? Deutsch says. > > To me, it is not interesting what Deutsch says, it is more interesting > what Deutsch explains. If Deutsch is not able to explain it in a way > that makes the majority accept it, then that is a failing of Deutsch. > I would start with fabric of reality, if you are interested in his explanation. Or if you are waiting for a majority to be converted to MW, simply know that it might take another 50 or another 100 years. If you want to know the answer now, you will need to me put some work in to understand the issues. But I think this could be done in a few hours contemplating the question of where is the computation being performed when the 500 digit number is factored. Feel free to ask me any other questions related to this that might come to you. I will do my best to try to answer them. > > > > Also: "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the > very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description > > of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even > anger.? > > Cynicism and anger I do not like. Incomprehension on the other hand, I > can fully embrace. Again, if he cannot explain it in a way to make it > comprehensible it is on him. But anger and cynicism he does not deserve, > there I support him. > ?? > > But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past > each > > other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =) > > > > Yes, some progress, I hope. :-) > > My biggest insight so far is how complex and ground breaking the subject > matter is, and how little I know. But I also think, looking at your > quotes, that there is a lot of emotions and ego involved when the giants > are debating this, and that is sad. > I don't see the situation as the greats debating these ideas back and forth. I see it more as the momentum of millions of practicing physicists raised under CI through their formative years in college, studiously shutting up and calculating, while a comparatively small percentage bothered to ask deeper questions of what does this mean, (what is an observer, what is a measurement, how does wave function collapse happen, etc.) being led to see the problems with Copenhagen, and realizing collapse isn't real, and thereby come to accept what the math of the equations have been saying all along, bringing them to MW. Then these MW converts try to wake up the millions of others who remain with CI, but find they stubbornly don't care about the thorny issues of what measurement or observation really are, so long as they can use the theory to get the right answers. And so, the CI adherents remain CI adherents. > > What is the suicide rate among MWI proponents? As for using > statistics > > beyond this world, I think we already touched on that a few emails > back. > > > > I am aware of one case where someone believing in many worlds took their > own life. It was Hugh Everett's daughter: > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Many_Worlds_of_Hugh_Everett_III/dqgqPjqIyJoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Please%20sprinkle%20me%20in%20 > > > some%20nice%20body%20of%20water%E2%80%A6or%20the%20garbage%2C%20maybe%20that%20way%20I'll%20end%20up%20in%20the%20correct%20paralle > > > l%20universe%20to%20meet%20up%20w%2F%20Daddy.&pg=PT393&printsec=frontcover > > Tragic. =( Wouldn't that be a nightmare if MWI became the norm, if that > increased? > I don't know that it would necessarily increase. MW makes suicide subjectively impossible: you would always continue along those branches where you necessarily survive. There is also much solace that comes from the truth of many worlds. Much of what makes a young person's death tragic stems from all their unrealized potential and all the experiences they won't get to have. But if many worlds is true, that potential is realized and they do get to have all those experiences (in other branches of the multiverse). > > Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one day--when I'm > old and crazy." > > The man has a great sense of humour! =) > ?? Definitely. > > Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very > consistent! =) > > > > I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your agnosticism. > > Thank you Jason, and thank you for the great idea of the risk of being > too agnostic! > You're welcome Daniel, thank you for making my evening so thought-filled! > > Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) > > > > Humans had no answer to this generally, until rather recently. Agains, > Russell Standish, and Markus Muller have worked out a basis > > for Occam's Razor, from ensemble type theories. That is, they explain > not only why the universe has something like a Shrodinger > > equation behind it, but also why the simplest laws tend to be the right > ones. > > Why do they say "tend" and not "always"? > Good question. I think as is often the case, when we find something that seems like an unnecessary complication, it's not until much later we realize: oh no actually that explains a great deal more, or that things if it weren't like that, life wouldn't be possible. So in the short term, theories may not always seem as simple as possible, but often this is temporary. For example, general relativity is more complex than Newton's gravity, but general relativity also incorporated everything of special relativity too, so in that sense it was still simplifying overall. Or consider the discovery of the neutrino. It seemed at first like a completely extraneous particle. But later we found it plays a critical role in releasing elements out of collapsing stars. We wouldn't have oxygen or water if not for neutrinos. All the oxygen would fall into a black hole and would be lost forever if not for these neutrinos. ?? > > > physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how > things behave. > > > > But we can never know what anything "is" except our own > consciousness. I > > think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a > > material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world. > > > > A platonic world can be shown to explain the appearance of a material > world. It is thus a simpler theory than material world + > > platonic world, it is simply: platonic world. > > Or simply the material world? Or simply nothing at all? The null set? > The platonic world of mathematical truths would exist whether or not the physical world existed. It is necessary and self-existent. The same can't be said for the material world. > > Using simplicity of matter as an argument to rule out idealism, is an > application of metaphysical laws (assuming a metaphysical > > principle that favors simplicity) this is why I asked if you believed in > such a heuristic. I think most people assume it, and operate > > by it, but do not generally stop and wonder about the source of this > heuristic, and why it works. > > I think it goes back to what we discussed about doubting everything and > degrees of certainty. But occams razor cuts many ways, especially if you > leave the realm of computation and equations. > > > But no, I am not 100% sure of that. And yes, based on what we've > > discussed so far, do not see how anything about MWI could > _currently_ > > move it from a theory to something which would fit well in with our > > current ways of predicting events. > > > > I hope have hope that you will. :-) > > That's the beauty of the agnostic position. Maybe I will! ;) > > > As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the > > interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll > > insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known > and > > when he or they can be used to make testable predictions. > > > > But isn't this inconsistent with your strong bet on materialism? What > proof do you have that lets you ascribe a near certainty to > > materialism, but deny the same could be done for MW? > > The fact that it hurts when I get punched in the face, at the same time, > it does not hurt when someone in the other world tries to punch me in > the face. > Someone might have argued against Galileo, using this same reasoning, and conclude the earth doesn't move, because they can't feel it move (even though Galileo's theory explains why we won't feel it move). MW explains why you aren't aware of the other events in other branches which aren't this one. > > Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and > > eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain > > interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually > > computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the > > human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols. > > > > Do you believe that the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is either '0' or > '1'? Or would you say it is a meaningless question because no > > one in this universe could ever determine which it was? > > Well, to be honest, yes, outside the scope of this discussion I do > consider the question meaningless. ;) > Do you think there is an answer? For example would you say that exactly one of the following two sentences is true: A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0 B) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1 I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even if we can't know which one is true. > If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty meaningless > question. > > > What then, if I told you, there was some other larger universe, where > people there had computed it, and determined which it was. > > Would that mean they have different mathematical truths there, than we > have here? > > I think that question is meaningless if there is no bi-directional flow > of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, as > fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless. > When would you say that 17 became prime? A) it's always been prime B) After the big bang C) When 17-year cicadas evolved D) When man invented numbers E) When man first counted to 17 F) When humans defined prime numbers G) When the first person proved 17 was prime H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 is prime > > > I'm no expert, but > > > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only > meaningful when we > > > interpret and process information about the world. Without > us, the > > > concept is meaningless. > > > > > > There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity > in this universe. This follows from the fact that there > > are systems > > > of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the > observable universe. > > > > See my previous reply. > > > > I have heard people argue for ultrafinitism before, but I think it leads > to inconsistencies. Most things we have proven in > > mathematics would be false, if there were not infinite numbers. > > For example, the proof that there are infinite primes would be false, > under ultrafinitism. If Pi's digits do not go on forever, then > > e^(2Pi*i) would not equal 1, but some other number. If it is not 1, then > all of mathematics breaks down due to the principle of > > explosion (see: > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#The_Foundational_Crisis > ) > > I don't see how that would follow from my position. Mathematical truths must be constant and observer independent. If they change over time, based on what we have done, e.g., if there were 174626847 factors of zero yesterday and 174626848 today, then you could prove two mutually inconsistent things which leads to the principle of explosion. The number of primes, the factors of zero, and digits of Pi must all be infinite, of math is to work. We have the > concepts, formulas, we perform calculations, and we can reason about > infinity, but at the end of the day, it is just a language and activity > in the brain of a being in the material world. Without us, all > mathematical truths are meaningless. The 17 year cicada evolved long before humans. It evolved to have a large prime period cycle as a large prime cycle is evolutionarily advantageous. They only exist when we interpret > them. > This seems like idealism, only applied to mathematical objects. If all the mathematicians go to sleep at the same time, does the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter stop being 3.14259... ? > This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have happened > unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;) > I feel we are writing a book together. ?? Best, Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jason > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug > 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, > August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello > Stuart, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a > quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of > > cutting > > > > > > > > edge > physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You > say that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax > > because > > > you are > > > > already > > > > > > immortal. You > > > > > > > > don't need to > > > > > > > > > copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if > > not > > > infinite > > > > numbers of, > > > > > you > > > > > > strewn about > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > multiverse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I > wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses > > > supported by > > > > proof or > > > > > is itone > > > > > > of many > > > > > > > > > interpretations of > > > > > > > > > current theories? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anthropic > considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that > > the > > > probability > > > > there's > > > > > only > > > > > > one > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > (with one > kind of > > > > > > > > physics) is > on the order of 1 in 10^122. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is as > close to proof as anything science can provide. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > regards, Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a crucial point, for those of us > > interested in > > > uploading, > > > > so I > > > > > think we > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would > > you > > > please > > > > explain > > > > > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you also please explain the comment about > > > continuity and > > > > > not-discontinuity > > > > > > not > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 05:47:07 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 22:47:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ancient cultural reference: piiiiigs in spaaaaace... RE: Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <000801d9e84f$561e0a50$025a1ef0$@rainier66.com> References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> <000801d9e84f$561e0a50$025a1ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:40?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Keith Henson via extropy-chat > ... > >...From Pigs in Cyberspace (Hans Moravec who used to post here) ... There are a zillion refs to this, but the actual paper is not easy to find https://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Posthumanity/pigs.txt > Keith > _______________________________________________ > > > > Keith the younger among us (which is nearly everyone here except BillW, you > and me) won't understand the ancient reference: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU0rj6drXdI > > Hey we college kids thought this was hilarious back in the olden days. The > Muppet Show was on Friday nights. It was great fun: Muppets Friday evening, > then Saturday Night Live the next night, then back to studies again. > > spike I never studied that much. Didn't have a TV across many of those years. The kids went to the neighbors to watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Hartman%2C_Mary_Hartman Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 11:00:00 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 12:00:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 06:11, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting to explain quantum computer not relying on MW. > If you have seen these, please share them. > _______________________________________________ I've looked at what various AIs have to say about this claim. They all seem to say that 'rely on MWI' is too strong a claim. The most common view on building a quantum computer seems to be the famous "Shut up and calculate!" attitude. :) BillK Question - Do quantum computers rely on MWI? Reply - Quantum computers do not necessarily rely on the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. The MWI is just one interpretation among several that attempt to explain the behavior of quantum systems. While it is a popular and intriguing interpretation, it is not a fundamental requirement for the functioning of quantum computers. Quantum computers are based on the principles of quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of particles at the microscopic level. These principles include superposition, entanglement, and interference, which allow quantum computers to perform certain calculations more efficiently than classical computers. Superposition is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that allows particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously. In the context of quantum computing, this means that a qubit (the basic unit of information in a quantum computer) can be in a superposition of both 0 and 1 at the same time. This property enables quantum computers to perform computations in parallel, potentially leading to exponential speedup for certain algorithms. Entanglement is another key feature of quantum mechanics that allows two or more particles to become correlated in such a way that the state of one particle cannot be described independently of the others. This property is exploited in quantum computing to create highly interconnected systems of qubits, enabling complex computations to be performed. Interference is a phenomenon that occurs when two or more quantum states overlap and interfere with each other. It leads to constructive or destructive interference, depending on the relative phases of the states involved. Quantum algorithms take advantage of interference effects to enhance computation efficiency. While these principles form the foundation of quantum computing, they do not depend on any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, including the MWI. The MWI proposes that every possible outcome of a measurement exists in a separate branch or "world," resulting in a multitude of parallel universes. However, this interpretation is still a subject of debate among physicists and philosophers, and its validity has not been conclusively proven. Quantum computers can be built and operated without explicitly assuming the truth of the MWI or any other interpretation. The focus is on harnessing the unique properties of quantum systems to perform computations, rather than on the philosophical implications of different interpretations. In conclusion, quantum computers do not rely on the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) or any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics. They are based on the principles of superposition, entanglement, and interference, which are fundamental to quantum mechanics. While the MWI is an intriguing interpretation, it is not a necessary requirement for the functioning of quantum computers. -------------------- From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 13:40:39 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:40:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 10:11 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Many worlds has the same problem that "are we living in a simulation?" has. > > From the inside, there is no way to tell. > This can be said of any theory: that because the only thing we can access is our own subjectivity, and that could be in error, or designed to have no correspondence to reality, then we cannot know anything. This predicament is general, and no more specific to quantum mechanics than it is to gravity. However, if we relax this supreme Cartesian doubt, and assume we aren't in a fever dream or under control of an evil demon, then we can make observations about reality and propose theories to account for them. When we find these theories make accurate predictions we accept them. As Leibniz writes: "Although the whole of this life were said to be nothing but a dream and the physical world nothing but a phantasm, I should call this dream or phantasm real enough, if, using reason well, we were never deceived by it." So if the evil demon, or simulation, or fever dream is reliable enough to be described by an equation or formula, and one it never deviates from, we might as well consider it a law. This is what we have done for QM: we made a formula or equation, and it works, so far we haven't been deceived by it, so we accept it as a description of the reality we find ourselves in. One implication of QM is that there's a multitude of other worlds out there which only weakly make their existence known to us (through interference effects). We regard these as real, because whatever dream or demon is giving the appearance of all these worlds, must be modeling them all too. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to give us factors of large numbers as a quantum computer is able to. > From Pigs in Cyberspace (Hans Moravec who used to post here) > > "The very moment we are now experiencing may actually > be (almost certainly is) such a distributed mental event, > and most likely is a complete fabrication that never happened > physically. > > "Alas, there is no way to sort it out from our perspective: we > can only wallow in the scenery." > One implication of ensemble theories is that QM must be true for all observers, even simulated ones. That is, because every observer has infinite instantiations, it is impossible "trap" their subjectivity in a single world or in a single simulation. It will always escape/leak into other neighboring possibilities, the possible continuations given everything the observer can infer from their present scenery. So all observers will experience fundamental unpredictability, even if one makes an observer in a deterministic computer program (from their first person view, the continuations of that observer's mind don't remain forever tied to that simulation). Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 14:11:54 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 10:11:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <1bb2fbf323d6a0b5d017bde8de86c5d4@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 11:29 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > On 2023-09-15 05:29, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 12:16 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat > > wrote: > >> This means that the counterfactual photon caused a counterfactual > > .> bomb > >> to explode, destroying itself in the process, and preventing it from > >> > >> interfering with the observed photon. This causes the photon to only > >> > >> take one path, end up at detector B, and thereby prove that the bomb > >> is > >> live and not a dud. It would not make sense that the photon would > >> not > >> blow up the bomb and not interfere with itself unless something > >> happened > >> to the other photon. Stuff that does not happen should not be able > >> to > >> cause stuff to happen here. Unless the stuff that doesn't happen > >> here > >> happens in another universe and that is what causes stuff to happen > >> here > > > > How is this experiment any different from any single photons > > interferometer experiment (where we say, replace the bomb with a red > > or blue stained piece of glass) and use photons from a red light > > laser, and use photon arrival locations to infer the color of the > > glass placed in the path of one of the photons? > > It's not different. The bomb detector was a thought experiment, but > since physicists didn't want actual bombs going off in their lab, they > confirmed the predictions of the thought experiment using an experiment > very similar to one you discuss here. > Ahh okay. Scientists are always adding bombs to their thought experiments to make them more vivid. Schrodinger's cat originally used a bunch of gun powder rather than some poison. > > It's less explosive than a bomb (just an explosion of some IR photons > > after the photon gets absorbed by the blue glass). But the outcomes > > are the same. > > > > It also seems to be equivalent to the two slit single electrons > > experiment where we put a detector at only one slit and don't observe > > the electron there. > > Yes, the two-slit single-electron experiment with a detector at one slit > is pretty close to the bomb tester. ?? > > I haven't seen people say before that these experiments confirm MW. > > I wouldn't say confirm, but merely add credence to, like a larger > posterior probability. Incidentally, the authors of the original > experiment say by way of explanation on > https://www.tau.ac.il/~vaidman/lvhp/m28.pdfpage 993 of their 1993 paper: > Thank you for this reference. > "In the MWI there is no collapse and all "branches" of the photon's > state (5) are real. These > three branches correspond to three different "worlds." In one world the > photon is scattered by the object, and in two others it does not. Since > all > worlds take place in the physical universe, we cannot say that nothing > has > "touched" the object. We get information about the object without > touching it in one world, but we "pay" the price of interacting with the > object in the other world." > > https://www.tau.ac.il/~vaidman/lvhp/m28.pdf I like putting it that way, it is certainly makes the unobserved outcome/universe seem far more real (the other world gives us information about a bomb) as compared with merely seeing some interference fringes in a shadow. > > > They do, of course, confirm a superposition of particle positions, but > > that has never been the issue with CI. CI accepts the superposition, > > it only adds that it disappears after an observation is made, whatever > > that may be, even if the observation happens to be "not observing an > > electron go through the right slit" or not observing an explosion of > > IR photons in the blue stained glass. > > Yes but how CI and MWI resolve the superposition is at the crux of their > difference. Both interpretations agree that the superposition of a > quantum 6-sided die would be a linear sum of the states 1 through 6: > > |1> + |2> + |3> + |4> + |5> + |6> > > The difference happens when a measurement is made. Lets say you roll the > die and observe a "6". In CI, that means the terms |1> + |2> + |3> + |4> > + |5> of the superposition, which were actual states a moment ago, are > destroyed or simply cease to exist. > > In MWI, however, when you make an observation, the superposition simply > separates into its component states with each sorting into their own > timelines: A|1>, B|2>, C|3>, D|4>, E|5>, and F|6>. So if you observe a > "6", you discover that you are observer "F" in the F timeline. > And presumably there is some time delay between a bomb exploding and the observer becoming aware of it (light travels only 1 foot per nanosecond) so there could be a significant macroscopic difference before observation causes collapse and makes the component of the wave function with the explosion suddenly disappear. Especially if the nearest conscious observer is far away. Let's say this experiment was done on the moon. Then both outcomes would last for a second after the bomb exploded (before observation by us on Earth collapsed it to one possibility). > > > So I am curious what you see in the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb test that > > implies MW. (If it's anything above and beyond the other superposition > > affirming experiments I mention above). > > The Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester and the experiments you mention above > are not affirming superpositions, they are affirming that they are > superpositions of real states. Only something real can cause something > to happen in the real world. If something counterfactual is causing > observable events in the real world, that counterfactual thing has to > real too. It's just real somewhere else. > They makes sense. Deutsch was making a similar argument that the shadow photons from other universes cause the real effect of a complex shadow pattern we observe in our world. So we know they must be real. I've never understood the anti-realist position that some advocates of CI or QB have taken. It just seems like complete denialism to me. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 14:42:04 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 10:42:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Interesting results Bill. If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For example, prompting it with something like: ------ "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct result. My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough atoms in the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all these numbers being represented? Where in reality are all these computations being performed? They must be done somewhere given we get the correct result, where are they all happening? Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming that XXXXX is the correct description of quantum mechanics." ------ You could experiment having the AI answer this question in different sessions but change XXXXX to different interpretations, such as: "The Copenhagen Interpretation" "Many-Worlds" "Pilot-wave Theory" "Quantum Bayesianism" The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, where someone who believes in CI, for example, might refuse to answer or ignore the question. Jason On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 7:01 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 06:11, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > > > > That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting to > explain quantum computer not relying on MW. > > If you have seen these, please share them. > > _______________________________________________ > > > I've looked at what various AIs have to say about this claim. > They all seem to say that 'rely on MWI' is too strong a claim. > The most common view on building a quantum computer seems to be the > famous "Shut up and calculate!" attitude. :) > > BillK > > Question - Do quantum computers rely on MWI? > > Reply - > Quantum computers do not necessarily rely on the Many-Worlds > Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. The MWI is just one > interpretation among several that attempt to explain the behavior of > quantum systems. While it is a popular and intriguing interpretation, > it is not a fundamental requirement for the functioning of quantum > computers. > > Quantum computers are based on the principles of quantum mechanics, > which describe the behavior of particles at the microscopic level. > These principles include superposition, entanglement, and > interference, which allow quantum computers to perform certain > calculations more efficiently than classical computers. > > Superposition is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that > allows particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously. In the > context of quantum computing, this means that a qubit (the basic unit > of information in a quantum computer) can be in a superposition of > both 0 and 1 at the same time. This property enables quantum computers > to perform computations in parallel, potentially leading to > exponential speedup for certain algorithms. > > Entanglement is another key feature of quantum mechanics that allows > two or more particles to become correlated in such a way that the > state of one particle cannot be described independently of the others. > This property is exploited in quantum computing to create highly > interconnected systems of qubits, enabling complex computations to be > performed. > > Interference is a phenomenon that occurs when two or more quantum > states overlap and interfere with each other. It leads to constructive > or destructive interference, depending on the relative phases of the > states involved. Quantum algorithms take advantage of interference > effects to enhance computation efficiency. > > While these principles form the foundation of quantum computing, they > do not depend on any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, > including the MWI. The MWI proposes that every possible outcome of a > measurement exists in a separate branch or "world," resulting in a > multitude of parallel universes. However, this interpretation is still > a subject of debate among physicists and philosophers, and its > validity has not been conclusively proven. > > Quantum computers can be built and operated without explicitly > assuming the truth of the MWI or any other interpretation. The focus > is on harnessing the unique properties of quantum systems to perform > computations, rather than on the philosophical implications of > different interpretations. > > In conclusion, quantum computers do not rely on the Many-Worlds > Interpretation (MWI) or any specific interpretation of quantum > mechanics. They are based on the principles of superposition, > entanglement, and interference, which are fundamental to quantum > mechanics. While the MWI is an intriguing interpretation, it is not a > necessary requirement for the functioning of quantum computers. > -------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 15:29:27 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:29:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 11:06 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 9:40?AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> he only thing we can access is our own subjectivity, and that could be >> in error, or designed to have no correspondence to reality, then we cannot >> know anything. This predicament is general, and no more specific to quantum >> mechanics than it is to gravity. However, if we relax this supreme >> Cartesian doubt, and assume we aren't in a fever dream or under control of >> an evil demon, then we can make observations about reality and propose >> theories to account for them.* >> > > Another way of saying that is to assume that Superdeterminism is untrue, > and I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make because it's quite > literally impossible to have a greater violation of Occam's Razor than > Superdeterminism. > I agree. > > *> One implication of QM is that there's a multitude of other worlds out >> there which only weakly make their existence known to us (through >> interference effects). We regard these as real, because whatever dream or >> demon is giving the appearance of all these worlds, must be modeling them >> all too. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to give us factors of large numbers >> as a quantum computer is able to.* >> > > Nobody has ever found one and I doubt one exists, but there is no proof > there is not a conventional factoring algorithm that is as fast or even > faster than Shor's quantum factoring algorithm. For that matter nobody has > ever been able to prove that P?NP although nearly every mathematician alive > believes it is, I think it's because of the intuitive belief that at some > level it's harder to write a novel than to read a novel, and it's harder to > find a mathematical proof than it is to understand a mathematical proof > written by somebody else. However if that intuition is wrong and P=NP and > we found a conventional algorithm that could efficiently solve all > nondeterministic polynomial time problems in polynomial time then quantum > computers would be unnecessary, conventional computers would work just as > well. But I would be very surprised if that turned out to be the case. > > *> One implication of ensemble theories is that QM must be true for all >> observers, even simulated ones.* >> > > I don't see why that would be true. Most characters in video games live > in a world where Newtonian physics rules, or a world where there is no > consistent physics at all. The creator of the video game is God of that > world, He can make the physics in it be anything he likes. > Yes but if there are any infinite number of God's each whom have created an infinite number of various simulations, then any being in any simulation cannot know which simulation they are in, nor have any certainty what they will experience next (on account of that uncertainty). For illustration, see the diagram here with the same ?? belonging to four different universes: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Irreducible_Randomness > >> > *That is, because every observer has infinite instantiations,* >> > > There may be a Jason Resch for each event that is physically possible, > but each individual observer only sees one event; that's why in our daily > lives we never see macroscopic objects in a quantum superposition. > Yes but this accounts for the appearance of subjective randomness, when it comes to predicting one's next experience. > >> *> it is impossible "trap" their subjectivity in a single world or in a >> single simulation.* >> > > Pronouns can be a trap in a situation like this, and personal pronouns > like "I" and "you" are even worse. In the above, what is the referent to > the word "their'' ? > "Every observer" > >> > *all observers will experience fundamental unpredictability, even if >> one makes an observer in a deterministic computer program* >> > > I agree. > ?? Jason > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 16:32:44 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 17:32:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > Interesting results Bill. > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For example, prompting it with something like: > > ------ > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct result. > > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough atoms in the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all these numbers being represented? Where in reality are all these computations being performed? They must be done somewhere given we get the correct result, where are they all happening? > > Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming that XXXXX is the correct description of quantum mechanics." > ------ > > You could experiment having the AI answer this question in different sessions but change XXXXX to different interpretations, such as: > > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > "Many-Worlds" > "Pilot-wave Theory" > "Quantum Bayesianism" > > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, where someone who believes in CI, for example, might refuse to answer or ignore the question. > > Jason > _______________________________________________ Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations are not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. It doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the calculation. A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand either the question asked or the answer received! :) Daniel has my sympathies. :) BillK Anyway, I asked the AI - How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of leveraging quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state of 0 or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations on a massive scale. To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large number of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can represent 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or 1. In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be in a superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential increase in the number of possible combinations. In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible combinations. The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is given by 2^4000. Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, the ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm that efficiently factors large integers, which has significant implications for cryptography. The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier transform (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By representing the input number as a superposition of different values, the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique properties of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The final result is obtained through a measurement process that collapses the superposition into a single outcome. It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent and perform computations on an exponentially large number of states, extracting useful information from these superpositions requires careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction techniques are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, which can disrupt the delicate quantum states. In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as Shor's algorithm. ---------------------- From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 17:09:33 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 12:09:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how this AI compares to the others, but these are the answers it provided for: *Copenhagen Interpretation: * (426 words, 3 links) Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem that is believed to be hard for classical computers. The algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs a distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1 . In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most widely accepted interpretations. According to this interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all possible states of the system. When a measurement is made, the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability given by the Born rule 2 . In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all possible states of the system. These states are represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of the qubits. The number of possible states that can be represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can represent two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can represent 2^n possible states 3 . The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s algorithm is proportional to log(N). For example, if N has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this may seem like an enormous number of qubits, it is important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects like atoms. Rather, they are abstract mathematical objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function collapses into one of its possible states with a probability given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on the qubits at various stages in order to extract information about the period of the function being analyzed. The interference between different paths in the quantum computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct answers to be amplified . In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all possible states of a system using qubits. These qubits do not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract mathematical objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. The interference between different paths in the quantum computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. *Many-Worlds:* (234 words, 0 links) Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It works by finding the period of a function, which is used to factor the number. The algorithm requires a quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being factored. In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The qubits are then measured, and the result is used to determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct result. The question of where these computations are being performed is an interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each containing a different version of reality. In this interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible universes simultaneously. The interference that occurs in Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce correct results while others will not. The correct results are then selected by interference between these universes. It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are other interpretations that do not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation is one of the most popular and widely studied interpretations. *Quantum Bayesianism:* (376 words, 4 links) Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations. Unlike classical computers that use bits to represent information as either 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which can represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon called *superposition* 1 . This allows quantum computers to perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in parallel. In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 simultaneously 2 . This is made possible by exploiting the superposition property of qubits. By performing a distinct mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum computer obtains a set of results that contain both correct and incorrect answers. Here?s where *interference* comes into play. Interference is another fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It allows the quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated with each possible result 3 . Through carefully designed operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes of correct answers while suppressing those of incorrect answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive interference in wave phenomena. The final step involves *measurement*, which collapses the superposition of qubits into a single state. The measurement process reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will be a correct factorization of the input number 4 . The computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or particles but rather through the manipulation of qubits and their associated probability amplitudes. It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the potential power of quantum computers for certain tasks, building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers are actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and developing error-correcting codes to make quantum computers more reliable and scalable. Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that emphasizes subjective probabilities and Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to interpret and understand quantum phenomena but does not directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers can represent and process an enormous number of possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum mechanics. Let me know if you have any further questions! I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most and was the least obfuscatory. I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are the computations performed?" Jason On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Interesting results Bill. > > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For > example, prompting it with something like: > > > > ------ > > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, factor a > 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by using the qubits to represent > every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical > calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses > interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct result. > > > > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent 2^4000 > distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs > Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not > enough atoms in the universe to represent all these values. So then, where > are all these numbers being represented? Where in reality are all these > computations being performed? They must be done somewhere given we get the > correct result, where are they all happening? > > > > Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming that > XXXXX is the correct description of quantum mechanics." > > ------ > > > > You could experiment having the AI answer this question in different > sessions but change XXXXX to different interpretations, such as: > > > > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > > "Many-Worlds" > > "Pilot-wave Theory" > > "Quantum Bayesianism" > > > > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, where > someone who believes in CI, for example, might refuse to answer or ignore > the question. > > > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations are > not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. It > doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the > calculation. > A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. > > I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand either > the question asked or the answer received! :) > Daniel has my sympathies. :) > > BillK > > Anyway, I asked the AI - > How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and > perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? > > The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform > 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of leveraging > quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state of 0 > or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same > time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations > on a massive scale. > > To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large number > of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit > superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can represent > 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or 1. > In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n > complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be in a > superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential > increase in the number of possible combinations. > > In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum > computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each > qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 > states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible combinations. > The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is given > by 2^4000. > > Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, the > ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct > numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm that > efficiently factors large integers, which has significant implications > for cryptography. > > The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier transform > (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By > representing the input number as a superposition of different values, > the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential > factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their > exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. > > During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer > performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular > exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique properties > of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The > final result is obtained through a measurement process that collapses > the superposition into a single outcome. > > It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent > and perform computations on an exponentially large number of states, > extracting useful information from these superpositions requires > careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction techniques > are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, which > can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > > In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers > and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states > simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of > possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex > problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as Shor's > algorithm. > ---------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 18:51:54 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 13:51:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ancient cultural reference: piiiiigs in spaaaaace... RE: Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> <000801d9e84f$561e0a50$025a1ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Interesting, I never understood the title's reference. Here is an archive of his CMU website, which seems to have gone down recently: https://archive.ph/AUixv Jason On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 12:48?AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:40?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > > Keith Henson via extropy-chat > > ... > > >...From Pigs in Cyberspace (Hans Moravec who used to post here) > ... > There are a zillion refs to this, but the actual paper is not easy to find > > https://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Posthumanity/pigs.txt > > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Keith the younger among us (which is nearly everyone here except BillW, > you > > and me) won't understand the ancient reference: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU0rj6drXdI > > > > Hey we college kids thought this was hilarious back in the olden days. > The > > Muppet Show was on Friday nights. It was great fun: Muppets Friday > evening, > > then Saturday Night Live the next night, then back to studies again. > > > > spike > > I never studied that much. Didn't have a TV across many of those years. > > The kids went to the neighbors to watch > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Hartman%2C_Mary_Hartman > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Sat Sep 16 21:08:08 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 23:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> Thank you Jason, I think this was very enlightening and made it much more clear what the differences are. To answer your questions, I can only see some possibilities: 1. As the AI says, the information is not stored based on atoms. Comparing it with the nr of atoms is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course, that begs the question... where is the information? How is it encoded? And how does it interface with the physical world if it is not based on atoms? 2. Is it possible to even build a quantum computer with 4000 qubits? Perhaps, once we approach 260 qubits, a limit will emerge? Maybe, once we start to hit more qubits, the model will break down? Who knows? Will quantum computing be stuck in the "we'll have it in 10 years" loop like fusion power? 3. It is based on atoms (or more fundamental particles) but we do not yet understand it. And when it comes to nr 1, then there are the interpretations, some are more specific in their attemps at explaining MWI, and some "shut up and calculate" and some probably (I don't know) have some other explanation. And finally, some say "we don't currently know". I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations would take the stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting to hear and compare. Best regards, Daniel On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how? this AI compares to the others, but these are the answers it provided for: > Copenhagen Interpretation:? > (426 words, 3 links) > > Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It > does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem that is believed to be hard for classical computers. The > algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs a > distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out > the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. > > In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most widely accepted interpretations. According to this > interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all possible states of the system. When a measurement is made, > the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability given by the Born rule 2. > > In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all possible states of the system. These states are > represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of the qubits. The number of possible states that can be > represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can represent two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can > represent 2^n possible states 3. > > The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s algorithm is proportional to log(N). For example, if N > has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this may seem like an enormous number of qubits, it is > important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects like atoms. Rather, they are abstract mathematical > objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. > > When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function collapses into one of its possible states with a probability > given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on the qubits at various stages in order to extract > information about the period of the function being analyzed. The interference between different paths in the quantum > computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct answers to be amplified . > > In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all possible states of a system using qubits. These qubits do > not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract mathematical objects that exist in a superposition of states > until they are measured. The interference between different paths in the quantum computation allows for incorrect answers to > cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. > > > Many-Worlds: > (234 words, 0 links) > > Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It > works by finding the period of a function, which is used to factor the number. The algorithm requires a quantum computer > with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being factored. > > In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical > calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The qubits are then measured, and the result is used to > determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct > result. > > The question of where these computations are being performed is an interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation of > quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each containing a different version of reality. In this > interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible universes simultaneously. The interference that occurs in > Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce correct results while others will not. The correct results > are then selected by interference between these universes. > > It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are other interpretations that do > not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation is one of the most popular and widely studied > interpretations. > > > Quantum Bayesianism: > (376 words, 4 links) > > Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations. Unlike > classical computers that use bits to represent information as either 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which can > represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon called superposition1. This allows quantum computers to > perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in parallel. > > In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 > simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the superposition property of qubits. By performing a distinct > mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum computer obtains a set of results that contain both correct > and incorrect answers. > > Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is another fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It allows the > quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated with each possible result3. Through carefully designed > operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes of correct answers while suppressing those of incorrect > answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive interference in wave phenomena. > > The final step involves measurement, which collapses the superposition of qubits into a single state. The measurement process > reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will be a correct factorization of the input number4. The > computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or particles but rather through the manipulation of qubits and > their associated probability amplitudes. > > It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the potential power of quantum computers for certain tasks, > building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers are > actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and developing error-correcting codes to make quantum computers > more reliable and scalable. > > Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that emphasizes subjective probabilities and > Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to interpret and understand quantum phenomena but does not > directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. > > I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers can represent and process an enormous number of > possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum mechanics. Let me know if you have any further questions! > > > > > > > I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most and was the least obfuscatory. > > I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are the computations performed?" > > Jason > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Interesting results Bill. > > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For example, prompting it with something like: > > > > ------ > > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by > using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical calculation > against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a > correct result. > > > > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct > computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough atoms in > the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all these numbers being represented? Where in reality are > all these computations being performed? They must be done somewhere given we get the correct result, where are they all > happening? > > > > Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming that XXXXX is the correct description of quantum > mechanics." > > ------ > > > > You could experiment having the AI answer this question in different sessions but change XXXXX to different > interpretations, such as: > > > > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > > "Many-Worlds" > > "Pilot-wave Theory" > > "Quantum Bayesianism" > > > > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, where someone who believes in CI, for example, might > refuse to answer or ignore the question. > > > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations are > not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. It > doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the > calculation. > A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. > > I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand either > the question asked or the answer received!? :) > Daniel has my sympathies.? :) > > BillK > > Anyway, I asked the AI - > How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and > perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? > > The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform > 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of leveraging > quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state of 0 > or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same > time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations > on a massive scale. > > To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large number > of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit > superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can represent > 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or 1. > In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n > complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be in a > superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential > increase in the number of possible combinations. > > In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum > computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each > qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 > states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible combinations. > The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is given > by 2^4000. > > Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, the > ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct > numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm that > efficiently factors large integers, which has significant implications > for cryptography. > > The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier transform > (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By > representing the input number as a superposition of different values, > the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential > factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their > exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. > > During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer > performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular > exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique properties > of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The > final result is obtained through a measurement process that collapses > the superposition into a single outcome. > > It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent > and perform computations on an exponentially large number of states, > extracting useful information from these superpositions requires > careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction techniques > are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, which > can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > > In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers > and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states > simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of > possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex > problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as Shor's > algorithm. > ---------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From efc at swisscows.email Sat Sep 16 21:43:16 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 23:43:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) Message-ID: <5956d11c-ee7a-070b-5756-2118dcd4d80c@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 10:11 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat > wrote: > Many worlds has the same problem that "are we living in a simulation?" > has. > > From the inside, there is no way to tell. > > This can be said of any theory: that because the only thing we can access is > our own subjectivity, and that could be in error, or > designed to have no correspondence to reality, then we cannot know anything. > This predicament is general, and no more specific to > quantum mechanics than it is to gravity. > > However, if we relax this supreme Cartesian doubt, and assume we aren't in a > fever dream or under control of an evil demon, then we > can make observations about reality and propose theories to account for them. > When we find these theories make accurate predictions > we accept them. But the problem is that predictions about things outside our reach can never be verified, so we can never know how accurate they are. We could be wrong about our starting point (qm), or in our interpretation (maybe our human language is not up to the task of translating the equation into something we understand). But I do agree about the supreme cartesian doubt and the need to relax it in order to get anywhere. Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a pragmatic view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will never reach the status of truth. But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I just wanted to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would become more clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting comes up. Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other thread? I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the other thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject. Best regards, Daniel From efc at swisscows.email Sat Sep 16 21:59:09 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 23:59:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> Upon some thought I decided to follow Bills modus operandi of asking iask.ai the following questions about my scenarios below: 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when there are only 2^260 atoms in the universe? 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of qubits? 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? And here I shorten the answers for the sake of the AI not rehashing all the quantum computer operations and drowning the relevant bits in a wall of text. For the curious, you have the original questions above and the site is iask.ai. 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when While it is true that there are only approximately 2^260 atoms in the observable universe, it is not necessary for each qubit in a quantum computer to correspond to an individual atom. The physical implementation of qubits can vary depending on the technology used. Different types of qubits have been proposed and developed, such as superconducting circuits, trapped ions, topological qubits, and more. These implementations do not necessarily rely on individual atoms but rather on manipulating certain physical properties or phenomena at the quantum level. For example, superconducting qubits are typically implemented using tiny loops of superconducting wire where the current can flow clockwise or counterclockwise simultaneously. Trapped ion qubits use the internal energy levels of individual ions to represent quantum information. These physical systems allow for the creation and manipulation of qubits without relying on individual atoms. Topological Quantum Computing: One promising approach to quantum computing that may address the scalability issue is topological quantum computing. Topological qubits are based on anyons, which are exotic particles that emerge in certain two-dimensional systems. ... number of classical bit combinations. The physical implementation of qubits does not necessarily rely on individual atoms, and alternative approaches like topological quantum computing may offer solutions to scalability challenges. 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? In a groundbreaking achievement, IBM has successfully built the largest quantum computer ever constructed, with a whopping 53 qubits! This monumental breakthrough marks a significant milestone in the field of quantum computing and paves the way for unprecedented computational power and capabilities. 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of qubits? Furthermore, there are physical constraints on how large a quantum computer can be built due to technological limitations. Currently, most quantum computers are built using superconducting circuits or trapped ions, which have their own limitations in terms of scalability and physical size. Superconducting circuits require extremely low temperatures near absolute zero to operate effectively, while trapped ions require precise control over individual ions, which becomes increasingly challenging as the number of qubits increases. In addition to these technical limitations, there are also theoretical limits to the size of a quantum computer. One such limit is known as the Bekenstein bound, which states that the maximum amount of information that can be contained within a given region of space is proportional to its surface area rather than its volume. This implies that there is a fundamental limit to how many qubits can be packed into a given physical space. It is important to note that the field of quantum computing is still in its early stages, and researchers are actively working on overcoming these limitations. There have been significant advancements in recent years, with the number of qubits in quantum computers steadily increasing. However, building large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computers that can outperform classical computers for a wide range of applications remains a significant challenge. 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? In conclusion, the question of whether the brain functions as a quantum computer is still an open and active area of scientific inquiry. While there are theories and studies suggesting that quantum processes may play a role in brain function, there is currently no consensus among scientists. Further research and experimentation are needed to determine the extent to which quantum phenomena influence brain processes. No definite answers, but who knows, maybe there is a theoretical limit to the size of quantum computers after all? Best regards, Daniel On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > Thank you Jason, I think this was very enlightening and made it much more > clear what the differences are. > > To answer your questions, I can only see some possibilities: > > 1. As the AI says, the information is not stored based on atoms. Comparing it > with the nr of atoms is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course, that > begs the question... where is the information? How is it encoded? And how > does it interface with the physical world if it is not based on atoms? > > 2. Is it possible to even build a quantum computer with 4000 qubits? Perhaps, > once we approach 260 qubits, a limit will emerge? Maybe, once we start to hit > more qubits, the model will break down? Who knows? Will quantum computing be > stuck in the "we'll have it in 10 years" loop like fusion power? > > 3. It is based on atoms (or more fundamental particles) but we do not yet > understand it. > > And when it comes to nr 1, then there are the interpretations, some are more > specific in their attemps at explaining MWI, and some "shut up and calculate" > and some probably (I don't know) have some other explanation. And finally, > some say "we don't currently know". > > I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations would take the > stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting to hear and > compare. > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >> I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how? this AI compares >> to the others, but these are the answers it provided for: >> Copenhagen Interpretation:? >> (426 words, 3 links) >> >> Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers >> exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It >> does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem that >> is believed to be hard for classical computers. The >> algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from 0 to >> 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs a >> distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct >> result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out >> the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. >> >> In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most >> widely accepted interpretations. According to this >> interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all >> possible states of the system. When a measurement is made, >> the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability >> given by the Born rule 2. >> >> In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all >> possible states of the system. These states are >> represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of the >> qubits. The number of possible states that can be >> represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can represent >> two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can >> represent 2^n possible states 3. >> >> The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s >> algorithm is proportional to log(N). For example, if N >> has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this may >> seem like an enormous number of qubits, it is >> important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects like >> atoms. Rather, they are abstract mathematical >> objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. >> >> When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function collapses >> into one of its possible states with a probability >> given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on the >> qubits at various stages in order to extract >> information about the period of the function being analyzed. The >> interference between different paths in the quantum >> computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct answers >> to be amplified . >> >> In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all >> possible states of a system using qubits. These qubits do >> not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract mathematical >> objects that exist in a superposition of states >> until they are measured. The interference between different paths in the >> quantum computation allows for incorrect answers to >> cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. >> >> >> Many-Worlds: >> (234 words, 0 links) >> >> Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers >> exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It >> works by finding the period of a function, which is used to factor >> the number. The algorithm requires a quantum computer >> with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being >> factored. >> >> In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from 0 >> to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical >> calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The >> qubits are then measured, and the result is used to >> determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to >> cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct >> result. >> >> The question of where these computations are being performed is an >> interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation of >> quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each >> containing a different version of reality. In this >> interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible >> universes simultaneously. The interference that occurs in >> Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce >> correct results while others will not. The correct results >> are then selected by interference between these universes. >> >> It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum >> mechanics, and there are other interpretations that do >> not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation is >> one of the most popular and widely studied >> interpretations. >> >> >> Quantum Bayesianism: >> (376 words, 4 links) >> >> Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of quantum >> mechanics to perform complex calculations. Unlike >> classical computers that use bits to represent information as either >> 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which can >> represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon called >> superposition1. This allows quantum computers to >> perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in parallel. >> >> In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits to >> represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 >> simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the superposition >> property of qubits. By performing a distinct >> mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum computer >> obtains a set of results that contain both correct >> and incorrect answers. >> >> Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is another >> fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It allows the >> quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated with >> each possible result3. Through carefully designed >> operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes of >> correct answers while suppressing those of incorrect >> answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive >> interference in wave phenomena. >> >> The final step involves measurement, which collapses the superposition of >> qubits into a single state. The measurement process >> reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will be >> a correct factorization of the input number4. The >> computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or particles >> but rather through the manipulation of qubits and >> their associated probability amplitudes. >> >> It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the >> potential power of quantum computers for certain tasks, >> building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing >> scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers are >> actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and >> developing error-correcting codes to make quantum computers >> more reliable and scalable. >> >> Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics >> that emphasizes subjective probabilities and >> Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to >> interpret and understand quantum phenomena but does not >> directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. >> >> I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers can >> represent and process an enormous number of >> possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum >> mechanics. Let me know if you have any further questions! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most and >> was the least obfuscatory. >> >> I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are the >> computations performed?" >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > Interesting results Bill. >> > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For >> example, prompting it with something like: >> > >> > ------ >> > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, >> factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by >> using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and >> performing a distinct mathematical calculation >> against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses >> interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a >> correct result. >> > >> > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent >> 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct >> computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has >> some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough atoms in >> the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all >> these numbers being represented? Where in reality are >> all these computations being performed? They must be done somewhere >> given we get the correct result, where are they all >> happening? >> > >> > Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming >> that XXXXX is the correct description of quantum >> mechanics." >> > ------ >> > >> > You could experiment having the AI answer this question in >> different sessions but change XXXXX to different >> interpretations, such as: >> > >> > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" >> > "Many-Worlds" >> > "Pilot-wave Theory" >> > "Quantum Bayesianism" >> > >> > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, >> where someone who believes in CI, for example, might >> refuse to answer or ignore the question. >> > >> > Jason >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations are >> not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. It >> doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the >> calculation. >> A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual >> Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. >> >> I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand either >> the question asked or the answer received!? :) >> Daniel has my sympathies.? :) >> >> BillK >> >> Anyway, I asked the AI - >> How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and >> perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? >> >> The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? >> A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform >> 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of leveraging >> quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states >> simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state of >> 0 >> or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same >> time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations >> on a massive scale. >> >> To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large >> number >> of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit >> superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can >> represent >> 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or 1. >> In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n >> complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be in >> a >> superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential >> increase in the number of possible combinations. >> >> In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum >> computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each >> qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 >> states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible combinations. >> The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is given >> by 2^4000. >> >> Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, >> the >> ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct >> numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm that >> efficiently factors large integers, which has significant >> implications >> for cryptography. >> >> The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier >> transform >> (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By >> representing the input number as a superposition of different values, >> the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential >> factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their >> exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. >> >> During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer >> performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular >> exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique >> properties >> of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The >> final result is obtained through a measurement process that collapses >> the superposition into a single outcome. >> >> It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent >> and perform computations on an exponentially large number of states, >> extracting useful information from these superpositions requires >> careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction >> techniques >> are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, which >> can disrupt the delicate quantum states. >> >> In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers >> and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit >> superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states >> simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of >> possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex >> problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as >> Shor's >> algorithm. >> ---------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 22:09:25 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 18:09:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <5956d11c-ee7a-070b-5756-2118dcd4d80c@swisscows.email> References: <5956d11c-ee7a-070b-5756-2118dcd4d80c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 5:44 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hello Jason, > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 10:11 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > Many worlds has the same problem that "are we living in a > simulation?" > > has. > > > > From the inside, there is no way to tell. > > > > This can be said of any theory: that because the only thing we can > access is > > our own subjectivity, and that could be in error, or > > designed to have no correspondence to reality, then we cannot know > anything. > > This predicament is general, and no more specific to > > quantum mechanics than it is to gravity. > > > > However, if we relax this supreme Cartesian doubt, and assume we aren't > in a > > fever dream or under control of an evil demon, then we > > can make observations about reality and propose theories to account for > them. > > When we find these theories make accurate predictions > > we accept them. > > But the problem is that predictions about things outside our reach can > never be verified, so we can never know how accurate they are. > I think the two sides of our positions boil down to a single question: do we, or don't we, trust our scientific theories? I don't know that there's any more to add beyond that, and I think our difference there can account for all of our differences on this topic. But if you feel otherwise I am anxious to see if you have a different take. The reason I have trust in our theories, even for things we haven't tested, is that if one doesn't believe theories will work for things we haven't tested, then we arrive at the position where we only trust our theories for things that have been tested. But then, what's the use in having a theory? > We could be wrong about our starting point (qm), or > in our interpretation (maybe our human language is not up to the task of > translating the equation into something we understand). > Human language is Turing universal so it can describe any system or process that is computable. Whether we humans have brains that can understand such descriptions is another question. > But I do agree about the supreme cartesian doubt and the need to relax > it in order to get anywhere. > Yes. > Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a pragmatic > view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will never reach > the status of truth. > Science never gets to truth, it only chases it. > But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I just wanted > to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would become more > clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting comes up. > > Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other thread? > I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the other > thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject. > > Best regards, Daniel Yes, many of these points are in that monster of a thread. Feel free to break out any specific items from my reply into their own threads if that would be helpful. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 22:27:51 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 18:27:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> References: <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 5:09 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thank you Jason, I think this was very enlightening and made it much more > clear what the differences are. > You're welcome, happy to hear that! > To answer your questions, I can only see some possibilities: > > 1. As the AI says, the information is not stored based on atoms. Many quantum computers actually do use individual atoms as the qubits, but my point with mentioning atoms, is even if you used the whole universe as a computer, and an atom to store each bit, you are still hundreds of orders of magnitude away from having enough bits to store everything that the quantum computer (which could fit in a table top) uses. Comparing > it with the nr of atoms is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course, > that begs the question... where is the information? How is it encoded? And > how does it interface with the physical world if it is not based on atoms? > Exactly. > 2. Is it possible to even build a quantum computer with 4000 qubits? According to the current theory, yes. Scott Aaronson has offered a $100,000 prize to anyone who can show him it's not possible. > Perhaps, once we approach 260 qubits, a limit will emerge? That could be, but it would require a different theory than current QM to explain. It would certainly excite the physicists to prove QM is wrong. Maybe, once we > start to hit more qubits, the model will break down? Who knows? Not impossible. Will > quantum computing be stuck in the "we'll have it in 10 years" loop like > fusion power? > Lately the number of qubits in quantum computers has been growing as fast or faster than Moore's law. Unlike with transistor miniaturization, I don't see any fundamental physical limits on the horizon coming up that would limit the number of qubits. > 3. It is based on atoms (or more fundamental particles) but we do not yet > understand it. > Nothing new had to be invented in QM to develop or explain quantum computers. It's just a straight forward application of QM. Qubits exploit superposition, and reduction to a common result exploits interference. These are the same phenomenon that produced the interference pattern in the two slit experiment. > And when it comes to nr 1, then there are the interpretations, some are > more specific in their attemps at explaining MWI, and some "shut up and > calculate" and some probably (I don't know) have some other explanation. > And finally, some say "we don't currently know". > I thought it was funny the AI outright admitted it couldn't explain quantum computers using Quantum Bayesianism (I couldn't either). > I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations would take > the stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting to hear > and compare. > In the other thread I give my assessment of why we don't find many strong proponents of CI. Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how this AI > compares to the others, but these are the answers it provided for: > > Copenhagen Interpretation: > > (426 words, 3 links) > > > > Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large > numbers exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It > > does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem > that is believed to be hard for classical computers. The > > algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from 0 > to 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs a > > distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a > distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out > > the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. > > > > In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most > widely accepted interpretations. According to this > > interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all > possible states of the system. When a measurement is made, > > the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability > given by the Born rule 2. > > > > In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all > possible states of the system. These states are > > represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of > the qubits. The number of possible states that can be > > represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can represent > two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can > > represent 2^n possible states 3. > > > > The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s > algorithm is proportional to log(N). For example, if N > > has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this > may seem like an enormous number of qubits, it is > > important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects > like atoms. Rather, they are abstract mathematical > > objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. > > > > When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function > collapses into one of its possible states with a probability > > given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on > the qubits at various stages in order to extract > > information about the period of the function being analyzed. The > interference between different paths in the quantum > > computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct > answers to be amplified . > > > > In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all > possible states of a system using qubits. These qubits do > > not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract > mathematical objects that exist in a superposition of states > > until they are measured. The interference between different paths in the > quantum computation allows for incorrect answers to > > cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. > > > > > > Many-Worlds: > > (234 words, 0 links) > > > > Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large > numbers exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It > > works by finding the period of a function, which is used to factor > the number. The algorithm requires a quantum computer > > with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being > factored. > > > > In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from > 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical > > calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The > qubits are then measured, and the result is used to > > determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to > cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct > > result. > > > > The question of where these computations are being performed is an > interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation of > > quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, > each containing a different version of reality. In this > > interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible > universes simultaneously. The interference that occurs in > > Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce > correct results while others will not. The correct results > > are then selected by interference between these universes. > > > > It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum > mechanics, and there are other interpretations that do > > not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation > is one of the most popular and widely studied > > interpretations. > > > > > > Quantum Bayesianism: > > (376 words, 4 links) > > > > Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of > quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations. Unlike > > classical computers that use bits to represent information as > either 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which can > > represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon > called superposition1. This allows quantum computers to > > perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in parallel. > > > > In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits to > represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 > > simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the superposition > property of qubits. By performing a distinct > > mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum > computer obtains a set of results that contain both correct > > and incorrect answers. > > > > Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is another > fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It allows the > > quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated > with each possible result3. Through carefully designed > > operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes > of correct answers while suppressing those of incorrect > > answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive > interference in wave phenomena. > > > > The final step involves measurement, which collapses the superposition > of qubits into a single state. The measurement process > > reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will > be a correct factorization of the input number4. The > > computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or particles > but rather through the manipulation of qubits and > > their associated probability amplitudes. > > > > It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the > potential power of quantum computers for certain tasks, > > building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing > scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers are > > actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and > developing error-correcting codes to make quantum computers > > more reliable and scalable. > > > > Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum > mechanics that emphasizes subjective probabilities and > > Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to > interpret and understand quantum phenomena but does not > > directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. > > > > I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers > can represent and process an enormous number of > > possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum > mechanics. Let me know if you have any further questions! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most and > was the least obfuscatory. > > > > I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are the > computations performed?" > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > > > > > Interesting results Bill. > > > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. > For example, prompting it with something like: > > > > > > ------ > > > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, > factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by > > using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, > and performing a distinct mathematical calculation > > against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses > interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a > > correct result. > > > > > > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can > represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct > > computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only > has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough atoms in > > the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all > these numbers being represented? Where in reality are > > all these computations being performed? They must be done > somewhere given we get the correct result, where are they all > > happening? > > > > > > Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions > assuming that XXXXX is the correct description of quantum > > mechanics." > > > ------ > > > > > > You could experiment having the AI answer this question in > different sessions but change XXXXX to different > > interpretations, such as: > > > > > > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > > > "Many-Worlds" > > > "Pilot-wave Theory" > > > "Quantum Bayesianism" > > > > > > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these > questions, where someone who believes in CI, for example, might > > refuse to answer or ignore the question. > > > > > > Jason > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations > are > > not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. > It > > doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the > > calculation. > > A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > > Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. > > > > I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand > either > > the question asked or the answer received! :) > > Daniel has my sympathies. :) > > > > BillK > > > > Anyway, I asked the AI - > > How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and > > perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's > algorithm? > > > > The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > > A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and > perform > > 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of > leveraging > > quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > > simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state > of 0 > > or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same > > time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel > computations > > on a massive scale. > > > > To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large > number > > of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit > > superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can > represent > > 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or > 1. > > In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n > > complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be > in a > > superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential > > increase in the number of possible combinations. > > > > In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum > > computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each > > qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 > > states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible > combinations. > > The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is > given > > by 2^4000. > > > > Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, > the > > ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct > > numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm > that > > efficiently factors large integers, which has significant > implications > > for cryptography. > > > > The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier > transform > > (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By > > representing the input number as a superposition of different > values, > > the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential > > factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their > > exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. > > > > During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer > > performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular > > exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique > properties > > of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The > > final result is obtained through a measurement process that > collapses > > the superposition into a single outcome. > > > > It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent > > and perform computations on an exponentially large number of > states, > > extracting useful information from these superpositions requires > > careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction > techniques > > are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, > which > > can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > > > > In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct > numbers > > and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > > superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states > > simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of > > possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex > > problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as > Shor's > > algorithm. > > ---------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 22:49:03 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 18:49:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 6:00 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Upon some thought I decided to follow Bills modus operandi of asking > iask.ai the following questions about my scenarios below: > > 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when > there are only 2^260 atoms in the universe? > 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? > > 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of > qubits? > > 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? > > And here I shorten the answers for the sake of the AI not rehashing all > the quantum computer operations and drowning the relevant bits in a wall > of text. For the curious, you have the original questions above and the > site is iask.ai. > > 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when > > While it is true that there are only approximately 2^260 atoms in the > observable universe, it is not necessary for each qubit in a quantum > computer to correspond to an individual atom. The physical implementation > of qubits can vary depending on the technology used. > > Different types of qubits have been proposed and developed, such as > superconducting circuits, trapped ions, topological qubits, and more. > These implementations do not necessarily rely on individual atoms but > rather on manipulating certain physical properties or phenomena at the > quantum level. > > For example, superconducting qubits are typically implemented using tiny > loops of superconducting wire where the current can flow clockwise or > counterclockwise simultaneously. Trapped ion qubits use the internal > energy levels of individual ions to represent quantum information. These > physical systems allow for the creation and manipulation of qubits without > relying on individual atoms. > > Topological Quantum Computing: > > One promising approach to quantum computing that may address the > scalability issue is topological quantum computing. Topological qubits are > based on anyons, which are exotic particles that emerge in certain > two-dimensional systems. > ... > number of classical bit combinations. The physical implementation of > qubits does not necessarily rely on individual atoms, and alternative > approaches like topological quantum computing may offer solutions to > scalability challenges. > I think it misinterpreted the question. It's not that the number of qubits must equal the number of atoms, it's that the 'information storage capacity' of the whole universe is nowhere near the number of states that even a small quantum computer can handle. > 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? > > In a groundbreaking achievement, IBM has successfully built the largest > quantum computer ever constructed, with a whopping 53 qubits! This > monumental breakthrough marks a significant milestone in the field of > quantum computing and paves the way for unprecedented computational > power and capabilities. > It must be using an old data set. IBM has built a 433 qubit quantum computer. This is already more states than atoms in the universe. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/05/25/1073606/ibm-wants-to-build-a-100000-qubit-quantum-computer/ > 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of > qubits? > > Furthermore, there are physical constraints on how large a quantum > computer can be built due to technological limitations. Currently, most > quantum computers are built using superconducting circuits or trapped > ions, which have their own limitations in terms of scalability and > physical size. Superconducting circuits require extremely low > temperatures near absolute zero to operate effectively, while trapped > ions require precise control over individual ions, which becomes > increasingly challenging as the number of qubits increases. > > In addition to these technical limitations, there are also theoretical > limits to the size of a quantum computer. One such limit is known as the > Bekenstein bound, which states that the maximum amount of information > that can be contained within a given region of space is proportional to > its surface area rather than its volume. This implies that there is a > fundamental limit to how many qubits can be packed into a given physical > space. > > It is important to note that the field of quantum computing is still in > its early stages, and researchers are actively working on overcoming > these limitations. There have been significant advancements in recent > years, with the number of qubits in quantum computers steadily > increasing. However, building large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum > computers that can outperform classical computers for a wide range of > applications remains a significant challenge. > For reference, the Bekenstein bound is the boundary of black hole densities. It's a little ridiculous to mention it in terms of a limit on how many qubits we can fit in a given volume. It's true of course, but the limits involved are literally astronomical. > 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? > > In conclusion, the question of whether the brain functions as a quantum > computer is still an open and active area of scientific inquiry. While > there are theories and studies suggesting that quantum processes may > play a role in brain function, there is currently no consensus among > scientists. Further research and experimentation are needed to determine > the extent to which quantum phenomena influence brain processes. > It's wrong here. Short of 1-2 fringe theorists, no one thinks the brain exploits quantum mechanics to perform parallel computations like quantum computers do. Tegmark did a calculation a few years ago that basically put this question to bed. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 > No definite answers, but who knows, maybe there is a theoretical limit > to the size of quantum computers after all? > There may be a limit, but it would not be based on existing theory. Should anyone prove this wrong, there's at least $100K and likely a Nobel prize to the person who demonstrates it. Jason > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Thank you Jason, I think this was very enlightening and made it much > more > > clear what the differences are. > > > > To answer your questions, I can only see some possibilities: > > > > 1. As the AI says, the information is not stored based on atoms. > Comparing it > > with the nr of atoms is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course, > that > > begs the question... where is the information? How is it encoded? And > how > > does it interface with the physical world if it is not based on atoms? > > > > 2. Is it possible to even build a quantum computer with 4000 qubits? > Perhaps, > > once we approach 260 qubits, a limit will emerge? Maybe, once we start > to hit > > more qubits, the model will break down? Who knows? Will quantum > computing be > > stuck in the "we'll have it in 10 years" loop like fusion power? > > > > 3. It is based on atoms (or more fundamental particles) but we do not > yet > > understand it. > > > > And when it comes to nr 1, then there are the interpretations, some are > more > > specific in their attemps at explaining MWI, and some "shut up and > calculate" > > and some probably (I don't know) have some other explanation. And > finally, > > some say "we don't currently know". > > > > I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations would > take the > > stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting to hear > and > > compare. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > >> I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how this AI > compares > >> to the others, but these are the answers it provided for: > >> Copenhagen Interpretation: > >> (426 words, 3 links) > >> > >> Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large > numbers > >> exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It > >> does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem > that > >> is believed to be hard for classical computers. The > >> algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from > 0 to > >> 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs a > >> distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a > distinct > >> result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out > >> the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. > >> > >> In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most > >> widely accepted interpretations. According to this > >> interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all > >> possible states of the system. When a measurement is made, > >> the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability > >> given by the Born rule 2. > >> > >> In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all > >> possible states of the system. These states are > >> represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of > the > >> qubits. The number of possible states that can be > >> represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can > represent > >> two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can > >> represent 2^n possible states 3. > >> > >> The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s > >> algorithm is proportional to log(N). For example, if N > >> has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this > may > >> seem like an enormous number of qubits, it is > >> important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects > like > >> atoms. Rather, they are abstract mathematical > >> objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. > >> > >> When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function > collapses > >> into one of its possible states with a probability > >> given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on > the > >> qubits at various stages in order to extract > >> information about the period of the function being analyzed. The > >> interference between different paths in the quantum > >> computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct > answers > >> to be amplified . > >> > >> In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all > >> possible states of a system using qubits. These qubits do > >> not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract > mathematical > >> objects that exist in a superposition of states > >> until they are measured. The interference between different paths in > the > >> quantum computation allows for incorrect answers to > >> cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. > >> > >> > >> Many-Worlds: > >> (234 words, 0 links) > >> > >> Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large > numbers > >> exponentially faster than classical algorithms. It > >> works by finding the period of a function, which is used to > factor > >> the number. The algorithm requires a quantum computer > >> with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being > >> factored. > >> > >> In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from > 0 > >> to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical > >> calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The > >> qubits are then measured, and the result is used to > >> determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to > >> cancel out the wrong answers to produce a correct > >> result. > >> > >> The question of where these computations are being performed is an > >> interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation of > >> quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, > each > >> containing a different version of reality. In this > >> interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible > >> universes simultaneously. The interference that occurs in > >> Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce > >> correct results while others will not. The correct results > >> are then selected by interference between these universes. > >> > >> It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum > >> mechanics, and there are other interpretations that do > >> not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation > is > >> one of the most popular and widely studied > >> interpretations. > >> > >> > >> Quantum Bayesianism: > >> (376 words, 4 links) > >> > >> Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of > quantum > >> mechanics to perform complex calculations. Unlike > >> classical computers that use bits to represent information as > either > >> 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which can > >> represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon > called > >> superposition1. This allows quantum computers to > >> perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in > parallel. > >> > >> In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits > to > >> represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 > >> simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the superposition > >> property of qubits. By performing a distinct > >> mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum > computer > >> obtains a set of results that contain both correct > >> and incorrect answers. > >> > >> Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is another > >> fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It allows the > >> quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated > with > >> each possible result3. Through carefully designed > >> operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes > of > >> correct answers while suppressing those of incorrect > >> answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive > >> interference in wave phenomena. > >> > >> The final step involves measurement, which collapses the superposition > of > >> qubits into a single state. The measurement process > >> reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will > be > >> a correct factorization of the input number4. The > >> computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or > particles > >> but rather through the manipulation of qubits and > >> their associated probability amplitudes. > >> > >> It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the > >> potential power of quantum computers for certain tasks, > >> building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing > >> scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers are > >> actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and > >> developing error-correcting codes to make quantum computers > >> more reliable and scalable. > >> > >> Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum > mechanics > >> that emphasizes subjective probabilities and > >> Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to > >> interpret and understand quantum phenomena but does not > >> directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. > >> > >> I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers > can > >> represent and process an enormous number of > >> possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum > >> mechanics. Let me know if you have any further questions! > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most > and > >> was the least obfuscatory. > >> > >> I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are > the > >> computations performed?" > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat > >> wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Interesting results Bill. > >> > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. > For > >> example, prompting it with something like: > >> > > >> > ------ > >> > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, > >> factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does so by > >> using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, > and > >> performing a distinct mathematical calculation > >> against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses > >> interference to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a > >> correct result. > >> > > >> > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can > represent > >> 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 distinct > >> computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only > has > >> some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough atoms in > >> the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are > all > >> these numbers being represented? Where in reality are > >> all these computations being performed? They must be done > somewhere > >> given we get the correct result, where are they all > >> happening? > >> > > >> > Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions > assuming > >> that XXXXX is the correct description of quantum > >> mechanics." > >> > ------ > >> > > >> > You could experiment having the AI answer this question in > >> different sessions but change XXXXX to different > >> interpretations, such as: > >> > > >> > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > >> > "Many-Worlds" > >> > "Pilot-wave Theory" > >> > "Quantum Bayesianism" > >> > > >> > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these > questions, > >> where someone who believes in CI, for example, might > >> refuse to answer or ignore the question. > >> > > >> > Jason > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations > are > >> not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. > It > >> doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during > the > >> calculation. > >> A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > >> Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. > >> > >> I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand > either > >> the question asked or the answer received! :) > >> Daniel has my sympathies. :) > >> > >> BillK > >> > >> Anyway, I asked the AI - > >> How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and > >> perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's > algorithm? > >> > >> The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > >> A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and > perform > >> 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of > leveraging > >> quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > >> simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state > of > >> 0 > >> or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same > >> time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel > computations > >> on a massive scale. > >> > >> To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large > >> number > >> of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit > >> superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can > >> represent > >> 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or > 1. > >> In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n > >> complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be > in > >> a > >> superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential > >> increase in the number of possible combinations. > >> > >> In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum > >> computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each > >> qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 > >> states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible > combinations. > >> The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is > given > >> by 2^4000. > >> > >> Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum > computer, > >> the > >> ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of > distinct > >> numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm > that > >> efficiently factors large integers, which has significant > >> implications > >> for cryptography. > >> > >> The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier > >> transform > >> (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By > >> representing the input number as a superposition of different > values, > >> the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential > >> factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their > >> exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. > >> > >> During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer > >> performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular > >> exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique > >> properties > >> of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The > >> final result is obtained through a measurement process that > collapses > >> the superposition into a single outcome. > >> > >> It is important to note that while a quantum computer can > represent > >> and perform computations on an exponentially large number of > states, > >> extracting useful information from these superpositions requires > >> careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction > >> techniques > >> are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, > which > >> can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > >> > >> In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct > numbers > >> and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > >> superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states > >> simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of > >> possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle > complex > >> problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as > >> Shor's > >> algorithm. > >> ---------------------- > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > >> > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 22:51:21 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 23:51:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 23:02, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > Upon some thought I decided to follow Bills modus operandi of asking > iask.ai the following questions about my scenarios below: >_______________________________________________ Asking these questions to a different AI (there are many nowadays) - 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when there are only 2^260 atoms in the universe? Quantum computers don't actually store information in physical qubits the same way classical bits store 1s and 0s. Instead, the qubits exist in superpositions of states that can represent many values simultaneously. So 4000 qubits don't need to store 2^4000 distinct values - they can explore a space of 2^4000 possibilities in parallel during computation. The actual physical implementation only needs to maintain the superposition, not store every distinct state. So there is no need for an infeasible number of atoms. The power comes from manipulating coherences among superpositions to perform computations in ways not possible with classical bits. The final read-out then samples from the quantum probability distribution to get the result. 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? The largest quantum computer built so far in terms of qubits is Google's Sycamore processor, which has achieved quantum supremacy with 53 qubits. Here are some other notable quantum computers and their qubit counts: IBM quantum computer 'Eagle' - 127 qubits (in 2022) IonQ quantum computer - 32 qubits Rigetti quantum computer - 40 qubits Honeywell quantum computer - 64 qubits Quantum Brilliance quantum computer - 19 qubits Intel quantum computer 'Horse Ridge' - 49 qubits Amazon Braket quantum computer - 32 qubits So in summary, Google currently holds the record for the largest operational quantum computer with 53 qubits in its Sycamore processor. IBM is a close second with 127 qubits in their Eagle processor unveiled in 2022. But many companies and research labs are working to build even larger quantum computers of over 100 qubits and beyond in the near future. The race is on to achieve the milestone of quantum advantage over classical supercomputers. 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of qubits? There are both practical and theoretical limits to how large quantum computers can scale in terms of number of qubits: Practical limits: Noise and decoherence - More qubits means more opportunities for errors to creep in from environmental noise, limiting useful computation time. Mitigating noise is a huge engineering challenge. Connectivity - Connecting many qubits in useful ways for multi-qubit gates becomes complex. Current hardware uses nearest-neighbor interactions. Components - Scaling up requires having many high quality quantum processors, amplifiers, cables etc. Very technically challenging. Temperature maintenance - Larger systems need more complex cooling mechanisms to maintain quantum coherence. Theoretical limits: Threshold theorem - To maintain low error rates when correcting errors, noise per qubit must be below a threshold to allow fault-tolerant quantum error correction. Surface code lattice - For 2D surface code error correction, each logical qubit may require a lattice of thousands of physical qubits. Overheads scale up costs. Quantum parallelism - While qubits themselves can represent large Hilbert spaces, the number of parallel operations is still limited by the number of qubits. So in practice technical challenges and error rates may prevent a quantum computer from exceeding a few hundred well-controlled qubits in the near term. But theoretical limits could allow much larger computers given low enough physical error rates per qubit. For full fault tolerance, millions of physical qubits may be needed per useful logical qubit. 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? No, there is no conclusive evidence that the brain acts as a quantum computer. Here are some key reasons why the brain is unlikely to rely on meaningful quantum effects: Temperature - The brain operates at a high temperature, around 310 K. Delicate quantum states generally require very low temperatures, near absolute zero, to avoid decoherence issues. Noise - The noisy, wet environment of the brain would quickly destroy most quantum coherence. The brain lacks quantum error correction mechanisms. Signaling - Neurotransmitter signaling operates classically, without evidence of exploiting quantum effects like superposition or entanglement. Structure - Neurons and synapses are far too large-scale and chaotic to support quantum behavior. No atomic-scale qubit architecture exists. Observation - No quantum effects like interference or tunneling have been observed in the brain. Its cognitive functions appear classically simulatable. Evolution - The brain slowly evolved within a classical environment. There are no signs of selective pressures for quantum advantages. Consciousness - Reports of quantum effects related to consciousness remain speculative and lack robust evidence. While some small-scale quantum effects may play minor roles in biology, overall the brain appears to fully operate via classical information processing. There is no evidence that the brain supports fundamental quantum computation or that quantum mechanics explains its core functions. The search continues for quantum phenomena in the brain. ----------------------------------------- Interesting different answers? BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 23:09:26 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 00:09:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 23:51, BillK wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 23:02, efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Upon some thought I decided to follow Bills modus operandi of asking > > iask.ai the following questions about my scenarios below: > >_______________________________________________ > > > Asking these questions to a different AI (there are many nowadays) - > > 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when > there are only 2^260 atoms in the universe? > > Quantum computers don't actually store information in physical qubits > the same way classical bits store 1s and 0s. Instead, the qubits exist > in superpositions of states that can represent many values > simultaneously. So 4000 qubits don't need to store 2^4000 distinct > values - they can explore a space of 2^4000 possibilities in parallel > during computation. The actual physical implementation only needs to > maintain the superposition, not store every distinct state. So there > is no need for an infeasible number of atoms. The power comes from > manipulating coherences among superpositions to perform computations > in ways not possible with classical bits. The final read-out then > samples from the quantum probability distribution to get the result. > > > 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? > > The largest quantum computer built so far in terms of qubits is > Google's Sycamore processor, which has achieved quantum supremacy with > 53 qubits. Here are some other notable quantum computers and their > qubit counts: > > IBM quantum computer 'Eagle' - 127 qubits (in 2022) > IonQ quantum computer - 32 qubits > Rigetti quantum computer - 40 qubits > Honeywell quantum computer - 64 qubits > Quantum Brilliance quantum computer - 19 qubits > Intel quantum computer 'Horse Ridge' - 49 qubits > Amazon Braket quantum computer - 32 qubits > > So in summary, Google currently holds the record for the largest > operational quantum computer with 53 qubits in its Sycamore processor. > IBM is a close second with 127 qubits in their Eagle processor > unveiled in 2022. But many companies and research labs are working to > build even larger quantum computers of over 100 qubits and beyond in > the near future. The race is on to achieve the milestone of quantum > advantage over classical supercomputers. > > > 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of qubits? > > There are both practical and theoretical limits to how large quantum > computers can scale in terms of number of qubits: > > Practical limits: > > Noise and decoherence - More qubits means more opportunities for > errors to creep in from environmental noise, limiting useful > computation time. Mitigating noise is a huge engineering challenge. > Connectivity - Connecting many qubits in useful ways for multi-qubit > gates becomes complex. Current hardware uses nearest-neighbor > interactions. > Components - Scaling up requires having many high quality quantum > processors, amplifiers, cables etc. Very technically challenging. > Temperature maintenance - Larger systems need more complex cooling > mechanisms to maintain quantum coherence. > > Theoretical limits: > > Threshold theorem - To maintain low error rates when correcting > errors, noise per qubit must be below a threshold to allow > fault-tolerant quantum error correction. > Surface code lattice - For 2D surface code error correction, each > logical qubit may require a lattice of thousands of physical qubits. > Overheads scale up costs. > Quantum parallelism - While qubits themselves can represent large > Hilbert spaces, the number of parallel operations is still limited by > the number of qubits. > > So in practice technical challenges and error rates may prevent a > quantum computer from exceeding a few hundred well-controlled qubits > in the near term. But theoretical limits could allow much larger > computers given low enough physical error rates per qubit. For full > fault tolerance, millions of physical qubits may be needed per useful > logical qubit. > > > 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? > > No, there is no conclusive evidence that the brain acts as a quantum > computer. Here are some key reasons why the brain is unlikely to rely > on meaningful quantum effects: > > Temperature - The brain operates at a high temperature, around 310 K. > Delicate quantum states generally require very low temperatures, near > absolute zero, to avoid decoherence issues. > Noise - The noisy, wet environment of the brain would quickly destroy > most quantum coherence. The brain lacks quantum error correction > mechanisms. > Signaling - Neurotransmitter signaling operates classically, without > evidence of exploiting quantum effects like superposition or > entanglement. > Structure - Neurons and synapses are far too large-scale and chaotic > to support quantum behavior. No atomic-scale qubit architecture > exists. > Observation - No quantum effects like interference or tunneling have > been observed in the brain. Its cognitive functions appear classically > simulatable. > Evolution - The brain slowly evolved within a classical environment. > There are no signs of selective pressures for quantum advantages. > Consciousness - Reports of quantum effects related to consciousness > remain speculative and lack robust evidence. > > While some small-scale quantum effects may play minor roles in > biology, overall the brain appears to fully operate via classical > information processing. There is no evidence that the brain supports > fundamental quantum computation or that quantum mechanics explains its > core functions. The search continues for quantum phenomena in the > brain. > ----------------------------------------- > > Interesting different answers? > > BillK I think there might be some confusion re qubits. Explain logical qubits and physical qubits - Logical qubits and physical qubits refer to different abstraction levels when designing and building quantum computers. Physical qubits are the actual physical implementation of the quantum bits that store information. They are the hardware the quantum computer is built from. Examples include superconducting circuits, trapped ions, and photonics. They have measurable quantum properties like superposition, entanglement, etc. But they are also prone to errors and noise. Logical qubits represent the idealized qubits used in the abstract quantum circuit model of computation. They are free of noise and errors. Algorithms are designed using logical qubits, allowing the programmer to think abstractly about creating superpositions, interfering alternatives, and getting probabilistic results. The job of quantum error correction is to encode multiple physical qubits redundantly to protect the logical qubit state from errors. So one logical qubit may be represented by 5, 25 or even over 100 physical qubits encoded in a quantum error correcting code. In simplest terms: Physical qubits are the noisy hardware components that hold quantum information. Logical qubits are idealized noiseless qubits that algorithms are designed with. The coding between the two allows practical physical quantum systems to emulate the ideal logical qubits required for computation. Bridging this gap is key to building scalable, fault-tolerant quantum computers. ------------------- BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Sep 16 23:17:52 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 19:17:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> <8e0125e4-d241-d24c-48dd-a49fffbc7bd3@swisscows.email> Message-ID: The difference is purely one of engineering challenge and makes little difference to the theoretical question of where are the computations happening and how big a quantum computer can we build. The basic idea is that because individual qubits are unreliable, one can use multiple qubits, together with error correction algorithms, to handle the errors. It's like ECC RAM, for those familiar with it. Jason On Sat, Sep 16, 2023, 7:11 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 23:51, BillK wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 23:02, efc--- via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > > > > > Upon some thought I decided to follow Bills modus operandi of asking > > > iask.ai the following questions about my scenarios below: > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > > > Asking these questions to a different AI (there are many nowadays) - > > > > 1. How does a quantum computer store the information in 4000 qubits when > > there are only 2^260 atoms in the universe? > > > > Quantum computers don't actually store information in physical qubits > > the same way classical bits store 1s and 0s. Instead, the qubits exist > > in superpositions of states that can represent many values > > simultaneously. So 4000 qubits don't need to store 2^4000 distinct > > values - they can explore a space of 2^4000 possibilities in parallel > > during computation. The actual physical implementation only needs to > > maintain the superposition, not store every distinct state. So there > > is no need for an infeasible number of atoms. The power comes from > > manipulating coherences among superpositions to perform computations > > in ways not possible with classical bits. The final read-out then > > samples from the quantum probability distribution to get the result. > > > > > > 2. What is the biggest quantum computer ever built in terms of qubits? > > > > The largest quantum computer built so far in terms of qubits is > > Google's Sycamore processor, which has achieved quantum supremacy with > > 53 qubits. Here are some other notable quantum computers and their > > qubit counts: > > > > IBM quantum computer 'Eagle' - 127 qubits (in 2022) > > IonQ quantum computer - 32 qubits > > Rigetti quantum computer - 40 qubits > > Honeywell quantum computer - 64 qubits > > Quantum Brilliance quantum computer - 19 qubits > > Intel quantum computer 'Horse Ridge' - 49 qubits > > Amazon Braket quantum computer - 32 qubits > > > > So in summary, Google currently holds the record for the largest > > operational quantum computer with 53 qubits in its Sycamore processor. > > IBM is a close second with 127 qubits in their Eagle processor > > unveiled in 2022. But many companies and research labs are working to > > build even larger quantum computers of over 100 qubits and beyond in > > the near future. The race is on to achieve the milestone of quantum > > advantage over classical supercomputers. > > > > > > 3. Are there any limits to how big a quantum computer can be in terms of > qubits? > > > > There are both practical and theoretical limits to how large quantum > > computers can scale in terms of number of qubits: > > > > Practical limits: > > > > Noise and decoherence - More qubits means more opportunities for > > errors to creep in from environmental noise, limiting useful > > computation time. Mitigating noise is a huge engineering challenge. > > Connectivity - Connecting many qubits in useful ways for multi-qubit > > gates becomes complex. Current hardware uses nearest-neighbor > > interactions. > > Components - Scaling up requires having many high quality quantum > > processors, amplifiers, cables etc. Very technically challenging. > > Temperature maintenance - Larger systems need more complex cooling > > mechanisms to maintain quantum coherence. > > > > Theoretical limits: > > > > Threshold theorem - To maintain low error rates when correcting > > errors, noise per qubit must be below a threshold to allow > > fault-tolerant quantum error correction. > > Surface code lattice - For 2D surface code error correction, each > > logical qubit may require a lattice of thousands of physical qubits. > > Overheads scale up costs. > > Quantum parallelism - While qubits themselves can represent large > > Hilbert spaces, the number of parallel operations is still limited by > > the number of qubits. > > > > So in practice technical challenges and error rates may prevent a > > quantum computer from exceeding a few hundred well-controlled qubits > > in the near term. But theoretical limits could allow much larger > > computers given low enough physical error rates per qubit. For full > > fault tolerance, millions of physical qubits may be needed per useful > > logical qubit. > > > > > > 4. Is the brain a quantum computer? > > > > No, there is no conclusive evidence that the brain acts as a quantum > > computer. Here are some key reasons why the brain is unlikely to rely > > on meaningful quantum effects: > > > > Temperature - The brain operates at a high temperature, around 310 K. > > Delicate quantum states generally require very low temperatures, near > > absolute zero, to avoid decoherence issues. > > Noise - The noisy, wet environment of the brain would quickly destroy > > most quantum coherence. The brain lacks quantum error correction > > mechanisms. > > Signaling - Neurotransmitter signaling operates classically, without > > evidence of exploiting quantum effects like superposition or > > entanglement. > > Structure - Neurons and synapses are far too large-scale and chaotic > > to support quantum behavior. No atomic-scale qubit architecture > > exists. > > Observation - No quantum effects like interference or tunneling have > > been observed in the brain. Its cognitive functions appear classically > > simulatable. > > Evolution - The brain slowly evolved within a classical environment. > > There are no signs of selective pressures for quantum advantages. > > Consciousness - Reports of quantum effects related to consciousness > > remain speculative and lack robust evidence. > > > > While some small-scale quantum effects may play minor roles in > > biology, overall the brain appears to fully operate via classical > > information processing. There is no evidence that the brain supports > > fundamental quantum computation or that quantum mechanics explains its > > core functions. The search continues for quantum phenomena in the > > brain. > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > Interesting different answers? > > > > BillK > > > I think there might be some confusion re qubits. > > Explain logical qubits and physical qubits - > > Logical qubits and physical qubits refer to different abstraction > levels when designing and building quantum computers. > > Physical qubits are the actual physical implementation of the quantum > bits that store information. They are the hardware the quantum > computer is built from. Examples include superconducting circuits, > trapped ions, and photonics. They have measurable quantum properties > like superposition, entanglement, etc. But they are also prone to > errors and noise. > > Logical qubits represent the idealized qubits used in the abstract > quantum circuit model of computation. They are free of noise and > errors. Algorithms are designed using logical qubits, allowing the > programmer to think abstractly about creating superpositions, > interfering alternatives, and getting probabilistic results. > > The job of quantum error correction is to encode multiple physical > qubits redundantly to protect the logical qubit state from errors. So > one logical qubit may be represented by 5, 25 or even over 100 > physical qubits encoded in a quantum error correcting code. > > In simplest terms: > > Physical qubits are the noisy hardware components that hold quantum > information. > Logical qubits are idealized noiseless qubits that algorithms are designed > with. > > The coding between the two allows practical physical quantum systems > to emulate the ideal logical qubits required for computation. Bridging > this gap is key to building scalable, fault-tolerant quantum > computers. > ------------------- > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 01:10:54 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 20:10:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pun Message-ID: What do you call it if one-eyed twins are on the way? Polyfetus bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 04:34:35 2023 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:34:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Elon Musk by Walter Isaacson Message-ID: First part of my review of Walter Isaacson?s biography of Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/giulioprisco/status/1703262313615118580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 12:58:11 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 07:58:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] triple pun Message-ID: not mine - needs to be oral: I call my ranch Focus because that's where the sun's rays meet (sons raise meat) - bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Sep 17 13:29:36 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:29:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] biggies all in favor of government regulation on ai Message-ID: <002401d9e96b$017b2380$04716a80$@rainier66.com> The California governor is moving forward with big plans to regulate AI. But that leaves a bunch of unanswered questions, such as the most obvious ones: how does a state enforce governor's whims when the state legislature never passed a law? We saw that in the mask mandates, which were really suggestions, but businesses could treat them as law if they wished. A friend asked me why the software CEOs, particularly the big guys, such as Elon Musk, seemed to be all on board with government regulation of AI. My answer: big companies benefit from more government regulation. Example is the aerospace business. The big guys can afford the compliance infrastructure that will break the annoying small competitor. Nature's functional equivalent is the forest fire benefitting the massive redwoods because it clears out the stuff on the ground below. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Sun Sep 17 16:57:39 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 18:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] biggies all in favor of government regulation on ai In-Reply-To: <002401d9e96b$017b2380$04716a80$@rainier66.com> References: <002401d9e96b$017b2380$04716a80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > My answer: big companies benefit from more government regulation.? Example is the aerospace business.? The big guys can afford the > compliance infrastructure that will break the annoying small competitor.? Nature?s functional equivalent is the forest fire > benefitting the massive redwoods because it clears out the stuff on the ground below. Correct. Regulatory capture is a well established technique for big businesses and oligopolies to keep small businesses and startups away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture Just look at banks. I think that is probably one of the best modern examples and why so many neobanks label themselves as financial services, money lenders, money transfers companies, basically anything _but_ banks (at least in europe). Best regards, Daniel > > ? > > spike > > > From efc at swisscows.email Sun Sep 17 21:42:48 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 23:42:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <5956d11c-ee7a-070b-5756-2118dcd4d80c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Good evening Jason, On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > But the problem is that predictions about things outside our reach can > never be verified, so we can never know how accurate they are. > > I think the two sides of our positions boil down to a single question: > do we, or don't we, trust our scientific theories? > > I don't know that there's any more to add beyond that, and I think our difference there can account for all of our differences on > this topic. But if you feel otherwise I am anxious to see if you have a different take. I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I think our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and constructive empiricism for me. What do you think? > The reason I have trust in our theories, even for things we haven't tested, is that if one doesn't believe theories will work for > things we haven't tested, then we arrive at the position where we only trust our theories for things that have been tested. But then, > what's the use in having a theory? That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of the essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we seem to have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you having made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and also, I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even though we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it still has been very valuable for me. > We could be wrong about our starting point (qm), or > in our interpretation (maybe our human language is not up to the task of > translating the equation into something we understand). > > Human language is Turing universal so it can describe any system or process that is computable. Whether we humans have brains that > can understand such descriptions is another question. Yes, I think perhaps that is what I was trying to get at. We are beings who live in 3+1 dimensions, and our brains, languages, figures of speech are completely attuned to that. With QM, we have reached a level that deviates so far from our ordinary world, that when we think we are translating equations into ordinary language, our intuitions cause us to err. But of course this is just pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if reality is so strange and foreign to us, that it might not be possible for us to grasp with images and our spoken languages. We need another language to express those truths, and things and aspects will be lost in translation. > Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a pragmatic > view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will never reach > the status of truth. > > Science never gets to truth, it only chases it. I agree with that, but see the realism vs the other options above for some points about what science is about. > But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I just wanted > to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would become more > clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting comes up. > > Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other thread? > I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the other > thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject. > > Best regards, Daniel > > Yes, many of these points are in that monster of a thread. Feel free to break out any specific items from my reply into their own > threads if that would be helpful. Yes, I'll have a look at it, and let's see. =) Best regards, Daniel > > Jason? > > From efc at swisscows.email Sun Sep 17 21:48:27 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 23:48:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <9fc4c7bb-ae98-ae09-4170-84454d353a4d@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > Comparing > it with the nr of atoms is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course, > that begs the question... where is the information? How is it encoded? And > how does it interface with the physical world if it is not based on atoms? > > Exactly. So clearly it is stored in a different way, as the AI says, and we end up in the "shut up and calculate", "suspend judgment until more proof arrives", or any of the interpretations. I think that summarizes where we are right? > 2. Is it possible to even build a quantum computer with 4000 qubits? > > According to the current theory, yes. Scott Aaronson has offered a $100,000 prize to anyone who can show him it's not possible. > > Perhaps, once we approach 260 qubits, a limit will emerge? > > That could be, but it would require a different theory than current QM to explain. It would certainly excite the physicists to prove > QM is wrong. Would it have to be completely wrong, or would an adjustment be possible? > Will > quantum computing be stuck in the "we'll have it in 10 years" loop like > fusion power? > > Lately the number of qubits in quantum computers has been growing as fast or faster than Moore's law. Unlike with transistor > miniaturization, I don't see any fundamental physical limits on the horizon coming up that would limit the number of qubits. And as you pointed out, IBM was at 433! So that shows the dangers of AI! Oh, and IBM precicts 1000 within a year or so. Adding to that, has any real and useful work been done with these quantum computers such as actually cracking an RSA key? How far away are we from crackin a 1024 bit key? Seems to me that some intelligence services will soon start to sweat! ;) > I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations would take > the stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting to hear > and compare. > > In the other thread I give my assessment of why we don't find many strong proponents of CI. Will have a look! Best regards, Daniel > > Jason? > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how? this AI compares to the others, but these are the answers it > provided for: > > Copenhagen Interpretation:? > > (426 words, 3 links) > > > >? ? ? ?Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical > algorithms. It > >? ? ? ?does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem that is believed to be hard for classical > computers. The > >? ? ? ?algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs > a > >? ? ? ?distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to > cancel out > >? ? ? ?the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. > > > > In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most widely accepted interpretations. According to > this > > interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all possible states of the system. When a measurement > is made, > > the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability given by the Born rule 2. > > > > In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all possible states of the system. These states are > > represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of the qubits. The number of possible states that > can be > > represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can represent two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can > > represent 2^n possible states 3. > > > > The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s algorithm is proportional to log(N). For > example, if N > > has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this may seem like an enormous number of qubits, it > is > > important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects like atoms. Rather, they are abstract > mathematical > > objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. > > > > When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function collapses into one of its possible states with a > probability > > given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on the qubits at various stages in order to extract > > information about the period of the function being analyzed. The interference between different paths in the quantum > > computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct answers to be amplified . > > > > In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all possible states of a system using qubits. These > qubits do > > not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract mathematical objects that exist in a superposition of > states > > until they are measured. The interference between different paths in the quantum computation allows for incorrect > answers to > > cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. > > > > > > Many-Worlds: > > (234 words, 0 links) > > > >? ? ? ?Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical > algorithms. It > >? ? ? ?works by finding the period of a function, which is used to factor the number. The algorithm requires a quantum > computer > >? ? ? ?with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being factored. > > > > In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical > > calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The qubits are then measured, and the result is > used to > > determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a > correct > > result. > > > > The question of where these computations are being performed is an interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation > of > > quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each containing a different version of reality. > In this > > interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible universes simultaneously. The interference that > occurs in > > Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce correct results while others will not. The correct > results > > are then selected by interference between these universes. > > > > It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are other interpretations > that do > > not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation is one of the most popular and widely studied > > interpretations. > > > > > > Quantum Bayesianism: > > (376 words, 4 links) > > > >? ? ? ?Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations. > Unlike > >? ? ? ?classical computers that use bits to represent information as either 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which > can > >? ? ? ?represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon called superposition1. This allows quantum > computers to > >? ? ? ?perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in parallel. > > > > In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 > > simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the superposition property of qubits. By performing a distinct > > mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum computer obtains a set of results that contain both > correct > > and incorrect answers. > > > > Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is another fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It > allows the > > quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated with each possible result3. Through carefully > designed > > operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes of correct answers while suppressing those of > incorrect > > answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive interference in wave phenomena. > > > > The final step involves measurement, which collapses the superposition of qubits into a single state. The measurement > process > > reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will be a correct factorization of the input > number4. The > > computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or particles but rather through the manipulation of qubits > and > > their associated probability amplitudes. > > > > It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the potential power of quantum computers for certain > tasks, > > building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers > are > > actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and developing error-correcting codes to make quantum > computers > > more reliable and scalable. > > > > Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that emphasizes subjective probabilities > and > > Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to interpret and understand quantum phenomena but > does not > > directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. > > > > I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers can represent and process an enormous number of > > possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum mechanics. Let me know if you have any further > questions! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most and was the least obfuscatory. > > > > I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are the computations performed?" > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > >? ? ? ? wrote: > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Interesting results Bill. > >? ? ? ?> If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For example, prompting it with something like: > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> ------ > >? ? ? ?> "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does > so by > >? ? ? ?using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical > calculation > >? ? ? ?against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers to > produce a > >? ? ? ?correct result. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 > distinct > >? ? ? ?computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough > atoms in > >? ? ? ?the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all these numbers being represented? Where in > reality are > >? ? ? ?all these computations being performed? They must be done somewhere given we get the correct result, where are > they all > >? ? ? ?happening? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming that XXXXX is the correct description of > quantum > >? ? ? ?mechanics." > >? ? ? ?> ------ > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> You could experiment having the AI answer this question in different sessions but change XXXXX to different > >? ? ? ?interpretations, such as: > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > >? ? ? ?> "Many-Worlds" > >? ? ? ?> "Pilot-wave Theory" > >? ? ? ?> "Quantum Bayesianism" > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, where someone who believes in CI, for > example, might > >? ? ? ?refuse to answer or ignore the question. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?> _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > >? ? ? ?Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations are > >? ? ? ?not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. It > >? ? ? ?doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the > >? ? ? ?calculation. > >? ? ? ?A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > >? ? ? ?Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. > > > >? ? ? ?I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand either > >? ? ? ?the question asked or the answer received!? :) > >? ? ? ?Daniel has my sympathies.? :) > > > >? ? ? ?BillK > > > >? ? ? ?Anyway, I asked the AI - > >? ? ? ?How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and > >? ? ? ?perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? > > > >? ? ? ?The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > >? ? ? ?A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform > >? ? ? ?2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of leveraging > >? ? ? ?quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > >? ? ? ?simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state of 0 > >? ? ? ?or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same > >? ? ? ?time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations > >? ? ? ?on a massive scale. > > > >? ? ? ?To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large number > >? ? ? ?of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit > >? ? ? ?superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can represent > >? ? ? ?2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or 1. > >? ? ? ?In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n > >? ? ? ?complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be in a > >? ? ? ?superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential > >? ? ? ?increase in the number of possible combinations. > > > >? ? ? ?In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum > >? ? ? ?computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each > >? ? ? ?qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 > >? ? ? ?states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible combinations. > >? ? ? ?The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is given > >? ? ? ?by 2^4000. > > > >? ? ? ?Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, the > >? ? ? ?ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct > >? ? ? ?numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm that > >? ? ? ?efficiently factors large integers, which has significant implications > >? ? ? ?for cryptography. > > > >? ? ? ?The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier transform > >? ? ? ?(QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By > >? ? ? ?representing the input number as a superposition of different values, > >? ? ? ?the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential > >? ? ? ?factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their > >? ? ? ?exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. > > > >? ? ? ?During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer > >? ? ? ?performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular > >? ? ? ?exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique properties > >? ? ? ?of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The > >? ? ? ?final result is obtained through a measurement process that collapses > >? ? ? ?the superposition into a single outcome. > > > >? ? ? ?It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent > >? ? ? ?and perform computations on an exponentially large number of states, > >? ? ? ?extracting useful information from these superpositions requires > >? ? ? ?careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction techniques > >? ? ? ?are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, which > >? ? ? ?can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > > > >? ? ? ?In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers > >? ? ? ?and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > >? ? ? ?superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states > >? ? ? ?simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of > >? ? ? ?possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex > >? ? ? ?problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as Shor's > >? ? ? ?algorithm. > >? ? ? ?---------------------- > > > >? ? ? ?_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 23:54:11 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 16:54:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ancient cultural reference: piiiiigs in spaaaaace... RE: Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <566a6bd4d790cd556ceabc60aa5dc3e2@sollegro.com> <000801d9e84f$561e0a50$025a1ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:53?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > Interesting, I never understood the title's reference. I didn't either. I didn't watch The Muppet Show when it came out but recently got into the DVD series. I can see where the name came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muppet_Show#Recurring_sketches > Here is an archive of his CMU website, which seems to have gone down recently: https://archive.ph/AUixv Thanks. Hans has been gone from CMU for a long time working for Seegrid. Keith > Jason > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 12:48?AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:40?PM spike jones via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of >> > Keith Henson via extropy-chat >> > ... >> > >...From Pigs in Cyberspace (Hans Moravec who used to post here) >> ... >> There are a zillion refs to this, but the actual paper is not easy to find >> >> https://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Posthumanity/pigs.txt >> >> > Keith >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > >> > >> > Keith the younger among us (which is nearly everyone here except BillW, you >> > and me) won't understand the ancient reference: >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU0rj6drXdI >> > >> > Hey we college kids thought this was hilarious back in the olden days. The >> > Muppet Show was on Friday nights. It was great fun: Muppets Friday evening, >> > then Saturday Night Live the next night, then back to studies again. >> > >> > spike >> >> I never studied that much. Didn't have a TV across many of those years. >> >> The kids went to the neighbors to watch >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Hartman%2C_Mary_Hartman >> >> Keith >> > _______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 04:31:04 2023 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 06:31:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Early draft of Chapter 2 of my next book Message-ID: (Very) early draft of Chapter 2 of my next book. Irrational mechanics, draft Ch. 2. Astounding universe, amazing grace. https://www.turingchurch.com/p/irrational-mechanics-draft-ch-2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 11:57:55 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 12:57:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Star employees benefit less from AI Message-ID: Bad news, star employees: You're not the ones who'll benefit the most from AI Kai Xiang Teo Sep 18, 2023, Quote: Consultants using AI completed tasks faster and produced higher-quality results than those without, according to a new study. The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, per the study's authors. The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, whose average performance improved by 43%. Their above-average counterparts only saw an average performance increase of 17% from using AI. The study also found that those who used AI completed their tasks faster and produced higher-quality results than those without access. ------------------ BillK From gadersd at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 14:47:20 2023 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Gadersd) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 10:47:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Star employees benefit less from AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> I don?t think it will be long until human + AI <= AI Humans may turn out to be a major source of noise and bottlenecks. > On Sep 18, 2023, at 7:57 AM, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > Bad news, star employees: You're not the ones who'll benefit the most from AI > Kai Xiang Teo Sep 18, 2023, > > > > Quote: > Consultants using AI completed tasks faster and produced > higher-quality results than those without, according to a new study. > The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, per > the study's authors. > > The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, > whose average performance improved by 43%. > > Their above-average counterparts only saw an average performance > increase of 17% from using AI. > > The study also found that those who used AI completed their tasks > faster and produced higher-quality results than those without access. > ------------------ > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 14:59:09 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:59:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <5956d11c-ee7a-070b-5756-2118dcd4d80c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 4:44?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening Jason, > Hi Daniel, > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > But the problem is that predictions about things outside our reach > can > > never be verified, so we can never know how accurate they are. > > > > I think the two sides of our positions boil down to a single question: > > do we, or don't we, trust our scientific theories? > > > > I don't know that there's any more to add beyond that, and I think our > difference there can account for all of our differences on > > this topic. But if you feel otherwise I am anxious to see if you have a > different take. > > I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I think > our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific > realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and > constructive empiricism for me. What do you think? > >From wikipedia : "Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted." I think that's a fair description of my view. >From wikipedia : "In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes." I think that sounds like a good description of the position/stance you have been arguing from. >From wikipedia : "Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading)." This description isn't clear enough for me to understand. Though it seems to support the scientific realism view more so than the instrumentalist view, as it takes the stance that claims of a theory are either true or false (and it seems to me, the existence of objective truth requires the existence of an objective reality). I don't know to what extent you take instrumentalism to imply any form of anti-realism, I don't think you have argued that. Rather, you seem to be of the opinion that theories should be taken to be silent regarding predictions of which we haven't found the means to directly test. > > > The reason I have trust in our theories, even for things we haven't > tested, is that if one doesn't believe theories will work for > > things we haven't tested, then we arrive at the position where we only > trust our theories for things that have been tested. But then, > > what's the use in having a theory? > > That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of the > essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we seem to > have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you having > made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and also, > I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even though > we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it still > has been very valuable for me. > That is wonderful. Just this morning I was going over what I had written on relativity, and noticed something pertinent to this discussion. Einstein wrote his theory of special relativity in 1905. But it wasn't experimentally confirmed until 1932, even though, by that time, nearly all physicists had come to accept it as true. Einstein's Nobel prize, given in 1921, wasn't for his relativity, which was still too controversial given it had not been experimentally confirmed. Experimenters might have thought: there's no way we can ever build things to approach the speed of light and verify any of these predictions anytime this century, relativity is useless, and we shouldn't believe its predictions of time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc. but all of these were eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create many of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser gyroscopes, and particle accelerators. https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money on) the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory) A) After Einstein published his paper in 1905 B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was a better theory C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed (in 1932) E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been experimentally demonstrated F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of simultaneity had come into common use G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical technologies H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference frames at once, to witness the same two events occur in a different order Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point you would accept many-worlds: A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957 B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was a better theory C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse, Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.) E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally demonstrated (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum computer) F) Only after practical technologies exploiting Many-Worlds had come into common use (e.g., quantum computers that factor 2048-bit RSA keys) G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical technologies (e.g., you had rented a quantum computer on IBM and used it to break an RSA key) H) Only after someone invents a portal that lets us peer into or communicate with these other worlds > > We could be wrong about our starting point (qm), or > > in our interpretation (maybe our human language is not up to the > task of > > translating the equation into something we understand). > > > > Human language is Turing universal so it can describe any system or > process that is computable. Whether we humans have brains that > > can understand such descriptions is another question. > > Yes, I think perhaps that is what I was trying to get at. We are beings > who live in 3+1 dimensions, and our brains, languages, figures of speech > are completely attuned to that. With QM, we have reached a level that > deviates so far from our ordinary world, that when we think we are > translating equations into ordinary language, our intuitions cause us to > err. But of course this is just pure speculation, but I wouldn't be > surprised if reality is so strange and foreign to us, that it might not > be possible for us to grasp with images and our spoken languages. We > need another language to express those truths, and things and aspects > will be lost in translation. > It is true that the reality described by QM is quite alien to our everyday experience, and why math is so much better suited as a language for physicists to describe reality. Words like "splitting", and "branching", and "multiple universes" are very apt to be conceived of in different ways by different readers, and should better be considered as analogies for what the math in the theory literally describes. > > > Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a > pragmatic > > view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will never > reach > > the status of truth. > > > > Science never gets to truth, it only chases it. > > I agree with that, but see the realism vs the other options above for > some points about what science is about. > > > But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I just > wanted > > to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would become > more > > clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting comes > up. > > > > Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other > thread? > > I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the other > > thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject. > > > > Best regards, Daniel > > > > Yes, many of these points are in that monster of a thread. Feel free to > break out any specific items from my reply into their own > > threads if that would be helpful. > > Yes, I'll have a look at it, and let's see. =) > > Best, Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 15:27:00 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 10:27:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <9fc4c7bb-ae98-ae09-4170-84454d353a4d@swisscows.email> References: <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> <9fc4c7bb-ae98-ae09-4170-84454d353a4d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 4:49?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hello Jason, > Hi Daniel, > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Comparing > > it with the nr of atoms is like comparing apples and oranges. Of > course, > > that begs the question... where is the information? How is it > encoded? And > > how does it interface with the physical world if it is not based > on atoms? > > > > Exactly. > > So clearly it is stored in a different way, as the AI says, and we end > up in the "shut up and calculate", "suspend judgment until more proof > arrives", or any of the interpretations. I think that summarizes where > we are right? > Someone arguing from CI would say the information is stored in the qubits, and the qubits can each simultaneously be in a superposition of two states, such that N qubits can be in 2^N states, and when we apply an algorithm to these qubits in 2^N states, we obtain 2^N results, and when we measure/read this state, the wave function, which includes all these 2^N different results collapses, and we see just one of the possible results. CI (at least realist versions) accepts the reality of this great multiplicity of 2^N results existing in a superposition. It just says that when any observer reads/measures/interacts with this quantum computer in 2^N states, that (2^N - 1) of the possibilities suddenly vanish, leaving just 1 behind. This accounts for what we see, but of course, leaves open a gaping hole of: how is our interaction with the quantum computer, any different from any of the interactions of the parts of the quantum computer itself, when we are all just atoms. What is measurement, physically? And why does it cause the 2^N - 1 other possibilities to simply disappear? Where do they go? An anti-realist position (like some versions of CI or QBism) would say this superposition is just an abstraction, the wave function is just a calculating device, which doesn't describe anything real. But then, we have the even greater question of how does something purely abstract, which you say is not real, *do anything*, like produce a valid answer to a problem? MW would say when anything (an observer, an electron, an atom, etc.) interacts with something in a superposition, that thing becomes part of the superposition. So when we read/measure/interact with the quantum computer, we obtain 2^N different outcomes of the observer, each one independently remembering having seen one of the distinct possible results of he 2^N states the quantum computer could be in. The other 2^N-1 states do not disappear, all states continue to exist and persist. The idea that the rest disappear, is only an *illusion* because each of the 2^N observers only remember seeing one of the 2^N possibilities (since there is a one-to-one correspondence that results from the superposition spreading to whatever interacts with it). There is no mystery of measurement, or collapse, or where or how the quantum computer does what it does, it is just systems of particles interacting deterministically according to the Shrodinger equation, and this math accounts for everything every observer remembers seeing. > > > 2. Is it possible to even build a quantum computer with 4000 > qubits? > > > > According to the current theory, yes. Scott Aaronson has offered a > $100,000 prize to anyone who can show him it's not possible. > > > > Perhaps, once we approach 260 qubits, a limit will emerge? > > > > That could be, but it would require a different theory than current QM > to explain. It would certainly excite the physicists to prove > > QM is wrong. > > Would it have to be completely wrong, or would an adjustment be > possible? > It would be wrong, and refuted as a theory in the same sense that Newtonian Gravity is refuted by General Relativity. General Relativity shows that Newtonian gravity is wrong, even though in most cases they yield similar results, to the extent that we can still use Newtonian gravity for most situations. It could be that we only need to make a minor tweak to the Shrodinger equation to make it right, but there would be no escaping that this is different math (and a different theory). Two examples of theories like this are objective collapse theories, such as: the Di?si?Penrose model and Ghirardi?Rimini?Weber theory (GRW). These both say that observation/measurement is not what causes collapse, but rather the system will spontaneously collapse when the size of the system gets too large. It would imply a fundamental upper bound to how large a quantum computer could be. It implies a theory that gives different predictions, which in principle could be tested (such as the largest size particle we could observe an interference effect from in a two-slit experiment). > > > Will > > quantum computing be stuck in the "we'll have it in 10 years" loop > like > > fusion power? > > > > Lately the number of qubits in quantum computers has been growing as > fast or faster than Moore's law. Unlike with transistor > > miniaturization, I don't see any fundamental physical limits on the > horizon coming up that would limit the number of qubits. > > And as you pointed out, IBM was at 433! I too was surprised by that. It was 100-something last time I looked. > So that shows the dangers of AI! > Oh, and IBM precicts 1000 within a year or so. Adding to that, has any > real and useful work been done with these quantum computers such as > actually cracking an RSA key? How far away are we from crackin a 1024 > bit key? Seems to me that some intelligence services will soon start to > sweat! ;) > We are probably a few decades away at the current pace. These qubits are not reliable enough yet to run an algorithm like Shor's algorithm for that many qubits. Quantum Error Correction will likely be required, and then we would need some multiple factor (perhaps dozens or hundreds) of qubits, beyond the size of the key, for it to work. If the qubits were perfectly reliable, Shor's algorithm only needs 2N qubits, where N is the number of bits in the RSA modulus. Jason > > > I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations > would take > > the stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting > to hear > > and compare. > > > > In the other thread I give my assessment of why we don't find many > strong proponents of CI. > > Will have a look! > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how this > AI compares to the others, but these are the answers it > > provided for: > > > Copenhagen Interpretation: > > > (426 words, 3 links) > > > > > > Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor > large numbers exponentially faster than classical > > algorithms. It > > > does so by finding the period of a function, which is a > problem that is believed to be hard for classical > > computers. The > > > algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every > number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then performs > > a > > > distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get > a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to > > cancel out > > > the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. > > > > > > In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of > the most widely accepted interpretations. According to > > this > > > interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes > all possible states of the system. When a measurement > > is made, > > > the wave function collapses into one of these states with a > probability given by the Born rule 2. > > > > > > In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to > represent all possible states of the system. These states are > > > represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the > amplitudes of the qubits. The number of possible states that > > can be > > > represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can > represent two possible states (0 or 1), and n qubits can > > > represent 2^n possible states 3. > > > > > > The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using > Shor?s algorithm is proportional to log(N). For > > example, if N > > > has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . > While this may seem like an enormous number of qubits, it > > is > > > important to note that these qubits do not represent physical > objects like atoms. Rather, they are abstract > > mathematical > > > objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are > measured. > > > > > > When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave > function collapses into one of its possible states with a > > probability > > > given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are > made on the qubits at various stages in order to extract > > > information about the period of the function being analyzed. The > interference between different paths in the quantum > > > computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and > correct answers to be amplified . > > > > > > In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to > represent all possible states of a system using qubits. These > > qubits do > > > not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract > mathematical objects that exist in a superposition of > > states > > > until they are measured. The interference between different > paths in the quantum computation allows for incorrect > > answers to > > > cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. > > > > > > > > > Many-Worlds: > > > (234 words, 0 links) > > > > > > Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor > large numbers exponentially faster than classical > > algorithms. It > > > works by finding the period of a function, which is used > to factor the number. The algorithm requires a quantum > > computer > > > with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number > being factored. > > > > > > In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every > number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct mathematical > > > calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct > result. The qubits are then measured, and the result is > > used to > > > determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is > used to cancel out the wrong answers to produce a > > correct > > > result. > > > > > > The question of where these computations are being performed is > an interesting one. In the many-worlds interpretation > > of > > > quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel > universes, each containing a different version of reality. > > In this > > > interpretation, the computations are being performed in all > possible universes simultaneously. The interference that > > occurs in > > > Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will > produce correct results while others will not. The correct > > results > > > are then selected by interference between these universes. > > > > > > It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of > quantum mechanics, and there are other interpretations > > that do > > > not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds > interpretation is one of the most popular and widely studied > > > interpretations. > > > > > > > > > Quantum Bayesianism: > > > (376 words, 4 links) > > > > > > Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles > of quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations. > > Unlike > > > classical computers that use bits to represent information > as either 0 or 1, quantum computers use qubits, which > > can > > > represent multiple states simultaneously through a > phenomenon called superposition1. This allows quantum > > computers to > > > perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in > parallel. > > > > > > In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its > qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 > > > simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the > superposition property of qubits. By performing a distinct > > > mathematical calculation against each possible number, the > quantum computer obtains a set of results that contain both > > correct > > > and incorrect answers. > > > > > > Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is > another fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It > > allows the > > > quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes > associated with each possible result3. Through carefully > > designed > > > operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability > amplitudes of correct answers while suppressing those of > > incorrect > > > answers. This process is analogous to constructive and > destructive interference in wave phenomena. > > > > > > The final step involves measurement, which collapses the > superposition of qubits into a single state. The measurement > > process > > > reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, > it will be a correct factorization of the input > > number4. The > > > computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or > particles but rather through the manipulation of qubits > > and > > > their associated probability amplitudes. > > > > > > It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates > the potential power of quantum computers for certain > > tasks, > > > building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an > ongoing scientific and engineering challenge. Researchers > > are > > > actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, > and developing error-correcting codes to make quantum > > computers > > > more reliable and scalable. > > > > > > Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of > quantum mechanics that emphasizes subjective probabilities > > and > > > Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on > how to interpret and understand quantum phenomena but > > does not > > > directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers > work. > > > > > > I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum > computers can represent and process an enormous number of > > > possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from > quantum mechanics. Let me know if you have any further > > questions! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the > most and was the least obfuscatory. > > > > > > I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where > are the computations performed?" > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Interesting results Bill. > > > > If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question > on it. For example, prompting it with something like: > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's > algorithm, factor a 4000-bit number. This algorithm does > > so by > > > using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to > 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical > > calculation > > > against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it > uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers to > > produce a > > > correct result. > > > > > > > > My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can > represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform 2^4000 > > distinct > > > computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe > only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not enough > > atoms in > > > the universe to represent all these values. So then, where > are all these numbers being represented? Where in > > reality are > > > all these computations being performed? They must be done > somewhere given we get the correct result, where are > > they all > > > happening? > > > > > > > > Please explain as best you can, answers to these > questions assuming that XXXXX is the correct description of > > quantum > > > mechanics." > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > You could experiment having the AI answer this question > in different sessions but change XXXXX to different > > > interpretations, such as: > > > > > > > > "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > > > > "Many-Worlds" > > > > "Pilot-wave Theory" > > > > "Quantum Bayesianism" > > > > > > > > The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these > questions, where someone who believes in CI, for > > example, might > > > refuse to answer or ignore the question. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the AI has already said that the different > interpretations are > > > not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates > regardless. It > > > doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening > during the > > > calculation. > > > A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > > > Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be > applied. > > > > > > I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't > understand either > > > the question asked or the answer received! :) > > > Daniel has my sympathies. :) > > > > > > BillK > > > > > > Anyway, I asked the AI - > > > How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct > numbers, and > > > perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's > algorithm? > > > > > > The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > > > A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers > and perform > > > 2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of > leveraging > > > quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > > > simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in > a state of 0 > > > or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at > the same > > > time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel > computations > > > on a massive scale. > > > > > > To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a > large number > > > of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of > qubit > > > superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register > can represent > > > 2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of > either 0 or 1. > > > In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can > represent 2^n > > > complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit > can be in a > > > superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an > exponential > > > increase in the number of possible combinations. > > > > > > In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a > quantum > > > computer would require a register consisting of 4000 > qubits. Each > > > qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 > and 1 > > > states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible > combinations. > > > The total number of distinct numbers that can be > represented is given > > > by 2^4000. > > > > > > Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum > computer, the > > > ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of > distinct > > > numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum > algorithm that > > > efficiently factors large integers, which has significant > implications > > > for cryptography. > > > > > > The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum > Fourier transform > > > (QFT), which enables the efficient computation of > periodicity. By > > > representing the input number as a superposition of > different values, > > > the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple > potential > > > factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers > their > > > exponential speedup over classical computers for certain > problems. > > > > > > During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum > computer > > > performs a series of operations on the qubits, including > modular > > > exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the > unique properties > > > of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input > number. The > > > final result is obtained through a measurement process > that collapses > > > the superposition into a single outcome. > > > > > > It is important to note that while a quantum computer can > represent > > > and perform computations on an exponentially large number > of states, > > > extracting useful information from these superpositions > requires > > > careful design and implementation. Quantum error > correction techniques > > > are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and > decoherence, which > > > can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > > > > > > In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 > distinct numbers > > > and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > > > superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple > states > > > simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the > number of > > > possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to > tackle complex > > > problems like factoring large integers using algorithms > such as Shor's > > > algorithm. > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 16:03:19 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:03:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Star employees benefit less from AI In-Reply-To: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> References: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> Message-ID: This may already be true for the lowest performers, but not for the top. And...so far as I can tell, humans are capable of learning specific skills much faster than AI - if the humans want to. This means that those who care about a craft can use AI as a crutch until they become better than AI. The problem with that future is the large percentage of humans who simply don't care about any particular useful craft. They have a job because they have to, not because there is anything useful they want to do. They might prefer to sit around all day getting drunk or otherwise pursuing self-pleasure, with even the basic necessities of life viewed as unpleasant chores. Quite a number of them would care enough to make life for others unpleasant if they could find a target - such as AI - to blame for their less-than-stellar resulting fortunes. On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 7:48?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don?t think it will be long until > human + AI <= AI > > Humans may turn out to be a major source of noise and bottlenecks. > > > On Sep 18, 2023, at 7:57 AM, BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > Bad news, star employees: You're not the ones who'll benefit the most > from AI > > Kai Xiang Teo Sep 18, 2023, > > > > < > https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-employees-lower-performers-most-impact-boston-consulting-group-2023-9?r=US&IR=T > > > > > > Quote: > > Consultants using AI completed tasks faster and produced > > higher-quality results than those without, according to a new study. > > The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, per > > the study's authors. > > > > The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, > > whose average performance improved by 43%. > > > > Their above-average counterparts only saw an average performance > > increase of 17% from using AI. > > > > The study also found that those who used AI completed their tasks > > faster and produced higher-quality results than those without access. > > ------------------ > > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 16:20:41 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:20:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Star employees benefit less from AI In-Reply-To: References: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Perhaps smarter AIs can help people find jobs that they are actually interested in doing. Few people go into the job market with a good set of personality and intelligence tests results so hirers can fit job to person. That needs to change. bill w On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:05?AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This may already be true for the lowest performers, but not for the top. > > And...so far as I can tell, humans are capable of learning specific skills > much faster than AI - if the humans want to. > > This means that those who care about a craft can use AI as a crutch until > they become better than AI. > > The problem with that future is the large percentage of humans who simply > don't care about any particular useful craft. They have a job because they > have to, not because there is anything useful they want to do. They might > prefer to sit around all day getting drunk or otherwise pursuing > self-pleasure, with even the basic necessities of life viewed as unpleasant > chores. Quite a number of them would care enough to make life for others > unpleasant if they could find a target - such as AI - to blame for their > less-than-stellar resulting fortunes. > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 7:48?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I don?t think it will be long until >> human + AI <= AI >> >> Humans may turn out to be a major source of noise and bottlenecks. >> >> > On Sep 18, 2023, at 7:57 AM, BillK via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> > >> > Bad news, star employees: You're not the ones who'll benefit the most >> from AI >> > Kai Xiang Teo Sep 18, 2023, >> > >> > < >> https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-employees-lower-performers-most-impact-boston-consulting-group-2023-9?r=US&IR=T >> > >> > >> > Quote: >> > Consultants using AI completed tasks faster and produced >> > higher-quality results than those without, according to a new study. >> > The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, per >> > the study's authors. >> > >> > The greatest gains were seen by below-average performers using AI, >> > whose average performance improved by 43%. >> > >> > Their above-average counterparts only saw an average performance >> > increase of 17% from using AI. >> > >> > The study also found that those who used AI completed their tasks >> > faster and produced higher-quality results than those without access. >> > ------------------ >> > >> > BillK >> > _______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 16:32:14 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:32:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Star employees benefit less from AI In-Reply-To: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> References: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 15:49, Gadersd via extropy-chat wrote: > > I don?t think it will be long until > human + AI <= AI > > Humans may turn out to be a major source of noise and bottlenecks. > _______________________________________________ The thought occurs to me that for some jobs an increase of 17% in top-level performance might be worth more than an increase of 43% in below-average performance. (Though improving poor performers is still worthwhile). BillK From gadersd at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 18:23:23 2023 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Gadersd) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 14:23:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Star employees benefit less from AI In-Reply-To: References: <888D5B5A-3132-49D4-A8FE-89B350397EE2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45741D27-80D3-4D65-B12B-47D3135C97F5@gmail.com> > The thought occurs to me that for some jobs an increase of 17% in > top-level performance might be worth more than an increase of 43% in > below-average performance. > (Though improving poor performers is still worthwhile). The current AIs are quite awful at programming and logic compared to experienced humans. I suspect my inequality will hold in a few years if/when AIs surpass most experienced humans at such tasks. The point at which AIs generally surpass human programmers is what I consider the start of the singularity. > On Sep 18, 2023, at 12:32 PM, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 15:49, Gadersd via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> I don?t think it will be long until >> human + AI <= AI >> >> Humans may turn out to be a major source of noise and bottlenecks. >> _______________________________________________ > > > The thought occurs to me that for some jobs an increase of 17% in > top-level performance might be worth more than an increase of 43% in > below-average performance. > (Though improving poor performers is still worthwhile). > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 18:59:08 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:59:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Vancouver homeless New Leaf Project Message-ID: A B.C. research project gave homeless people $7,500 each ? the results were 'beautifully surprising' Participants found housing faster, boosted food security and reduced spending on substances, study found Bridgette Watson ? CBC News ? Updated: August 30, 2023 Quotes: A Vancouver-based research project gave homeless individuals cash and tracked their progress for a year. The 50 cash transfer recipients not only found stable housing, they freed up space in shelters and, according to project data, saved the shelter system $8,100 per person over those 12 months. All 115 participants, ranging in age between 19 and 64, had been homeless for at least six months and were not struggling with serious substance use or mental health issues. Of those, 50 people were chosen at random to be given the cash, while the others formed a control group that did not receive any money. According to Williams, providing people like Ray the cash they need to get ahead also helps Canadian taxpayers. She said it costs, on average, $55,000 annually for social and health services for one homeless individual. According to study data, the project saved the shelter system approximately $8,100 per person for a total of roughly $405,000 over one year for all 50. "The common belief is that the status quo is cheap... in fact, it is incredibly expensive," said Williams. ---------------------------- BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 19:28:45 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 15:28:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18 b | NASA Message-ID: https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/2023/webb-discovers-methane-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-of-k2-18b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 00:26:04 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 01:26:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Boyajian's Star survey completed, analysis in progress Message-ID: One of The Most Mysterious Stars in The Galaxy Could Soon Be Explained 19 September 2023 By Michelle Starr Quote: Led by astronomer Massimo Stiavelli of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), a team has taken observations of Boyajian's Star using the James Webb Space Telescope, and is undertaking to decipher them. Stiavelli and his colleagues hope that JWST observations, collected in near- and mid-infrared with NIRSpec and MIRI, will help narrow it down. Especially because infrared wavelengths penetrate dust more efficiently than shorter wavelengths, and JWST is a powerful infrared telescope. We don't have any further answers yet ? the researchers are probably hard at work analyzing the new spectra, and working out what they mean ? but since the program has been marked as completed, it hopefully won't be long now. ------------------------ BillK From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 19 00:41:50 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:41:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Boyajian's Star survey completed, analysis in progress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001501d9ea92$14649080$3d2db180$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Boyajian's Star survey completed, analysis in progress >...One of The Most Mysterious Stars in The Galaxy Could Soon Be Explained 19 September 2023 By Michelle Starr ..., it hopefully won't be long now. ------------------------ BillK _______________________________________________ COOL thx BillK. I have been wondering about this for a long time, hoping it is what it kinda looks like. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 05:00:24 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 22:00:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Boyajian's Star survey completed, analysis in progress In-Reply-To: <001501d9ea92$14649080$3d2db180$@rainier66.com> References: <001501d9ea92$14649080$3d2db180$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 5:43?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: snip > COOL thx BillK. I have been wondering about this for a long time, hoping it is what it kinda looks like. I am not entirely sure what you hope for, but if it is alien-constructed megastructures there are good aspects and bad. The good is that if they made it through the singularity, perhaps we can too. The bad aspect is that we have competition. Keith PS, talk about the unlikely. > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 19 13:50:44 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:50:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Boyajian's Star survey completed, analysis in progress In-Reply-To: References: <001501d9ea92$14649080$3d2db180$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003301d9eb00$4a11d3f0$de357bd0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson ... >...I am not entirely sure what you hope for, but if it is alien-constructed megastructures there are good aspects and bad. The good is that if they made it through the singularity, perhaps we can too... That is a most important aspect. I was beginning to lose hope that we would survive even nuclear holocaust, never mind the singularity. The Russia/Ukraine war is most disturbing. The USA getting so deeply involved in it is even more so. >...The bad aspect is that we have competition. Keith Eh, we can whoop their asses. Assuming they have asses of course. We have so much practice at that, from whooping our own. >...PS, talk about the unlikely... It doesn't look like what I would have thought an alien megastructure would look like. Very odd. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 15:42:55 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 08:42:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Boyajian's Star survey completed, analysis in progress In-Reply-To: <003301d9eb00$4a11d3f0$de357bd0$@rainier66.com> References: <001501d9ea92$14649080$3d2db180$@rainier66.com> <003301d9eb00$4a11d3f0$de357bd0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 6:50?AM wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Henson snip > >...The bad aspect is that we have competition. > > Keith > > Eh, we can whoop their asses. Assuming they have asses of course. We have so much practice at that, from whooping our own. Spike, from the scale of their energy use they are at least 3100 years ahead of us. What do you think of the chance of an army3100 years ago against modern weapons? > >...PS, talk about the unlikely... > > It doesn't look like what I would have thought an alien megastructure would look like. Very odd. I don't know exactly what to expect. They seem to be optimized for computation, far out from their star and cold. As long as we stay planet-bound, they could move into the solar system and we would hardly notice. Keith > spike > > > > > > > From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 16:10:19 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:10:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] self explanatory bill w Message-ID: Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 19 20:56:06 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:56:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <86fa4686-8da8-2885-3464-f9e3369cffa9@swisscows.email> <9fc4c7bb-ae98-ae09-4170-84454d353a4d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Hello Jason, On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > (GRW). These both say that observation/measurement is not what causes collapse, but rather the system will spontaneously collapse > when the size of the system gets too large. It would imply a fundamental upper bound to how large a quantum computer could be. It > implies a theory that gives different predictions, which in principle could be tested (such as the largest size particle we could > observe an interference effect from in a two-slit experiment). Wouldn't that be something? QM being replaced or tweaked in our lifetime! > And as you pointed out, IBM was at 433! > > I too was surprised by that. It was 100-something last time I looked. Well, let's see if they break the 1000 qubit limit by 2024! > So that shows the dangers of AI! > Oh, and IBM precicts 1000 within a year or so. Adding to that, has any > real and useful work been done with these quantum computers such as > actually cracking an RSA key? How far away are we from crackin a 1024 > bit key? Seems to me that some intelligence services will soon start to > sweat! ;) > > We are probably a few decades away at the current pace. These qubits are not reliable enough yet to run an algorithm like Shor's > algorithm for that many qubits. Quantum Error Correction will likely be required, and then we would need some multiple factor > (perhaps dozens or hundreds) of qubits, beyond the size of the key,? for it to work. > > If the qubits were perfectly reliable, Shor's algorithm only needs 2N qubits, where N is the number of bits in the RSA modulus. Exciting times! =) Best regards, Daniel > > Jason > ? > > >? ? ? ?I do wish that a strong proponent of the other interpretations would take > >? ? ? ?the stage on the list. I think it would be incredibly interesting to hear > >? ? ? ?and compare. > > > > In the other thread I give my assessment of why we don't find many strong proponents of CI. > > Will have a look! > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason? > > > > > >? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?Daniel > > > > > >? ? ? ?On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > >? ? ? ?> I asked the question using Bing's chat. I don't know how? this AI compares to the others, but these are the > answers it > >? ? ? ?provided for: > >? ? ? ?> Copenhagen Interpretation:? > >? ? ? ?> (426 words, 3 links) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical > >? ? ? ?algorithms. It > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?does so by finding the period of a function, which is a problem that is believed to be hard for classical > >? ? ? ?computers. The > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1 using qubits, and then > performs > >? ? ? ?a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?distinct mathematical calculation against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses > interference to > >? ? ? ?cancel out > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?the wrong answers to produce a correct result 1. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> In quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most widely accepted interpretations. > According to > >? ? ? ?this > >? ? ? ?> interpretation, the wave function of a quantum system describes all possible states of the system. When a > measurement > >? ? ? ?is made, > >? ? ? ?> the wave function collapses into one of these states with a probability given by the Born rule 2. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> In Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses qubits to represent all possible states of the system. These > states are > >? ? ? ?> represented by complex numbers, which are stored in the amplitudes of the qubits. The number of possible states > that > >? ? ? ?can be > >? ? ? ?> represented by n qubits is 2^n. In other words, each qubit can represent two possible states (0 or 1), and n > qubits can > >? ? ? ?> represent 2^n possible states 3. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> The number of qubits required to factor a number of size N using Shor?s algorithm is proportional to log(N). > For > >? ? ? ?example, if N > >? ? ? ?> has 4000 bits, then approximately 8000 qubits are required . While this may seem like an enormous number of > qubits, it > >? ? ? ?is > >? ? ? ?> important to note that these qubits do not represent physical objects like atoms. Rather, they are abstract > >? ? ? ?mathematical > >? ? ? ?> objects that exist in a superposition of states until they are measured. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function collapses into one of its possible states > with a > >? ? ? ?probability > >? ? ? ?> given by the Born rule. In Shor?s algorithm, measurements are made on the qubits at various stages in order to > extract > >? ? ? ?> information about the period of the function being analyzed. The interference between different paths in the > quantum > >? ? ? ?> computation allows for incorrect answers to cancel out and correct answers to be amplified . > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> In summary, Shor?s algorithm uses a quantum computer to represent all possible states of a system using qubits. > These > >? ? ? ?qubits do > >? ? ? ?> not represent physical objects like atoms, but rather abstract mathematical objects that exist in a > superposition of > >? ? ? ?states > >? ? ? ?> until they are measured. The interference between different paths in the quantum computation allows for > incorrect > >? ? ? ?answers to > >? ? ? ?> cancel out and correct answers to be amplified. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Many-Worlds: > >? ? ? ?> (234 words, 0 links) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Shor?s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than classical > >? ? ? ?algorithms. It > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?works by finding the period of a function, which is used to factor the number. The algorithm requires a > quantum > >? ? ? ?computer > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?with a sufficient number of qubits to represent the number being factored. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> In Shor?s algorithm, the qubits are used to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and a distinct > mathematical > >? ? ? ?> calculation is performed against each one to get a distinct result. The qubits are then measured, and the > result is > >? ? ? ?used to > >? ? ? ?> determine the period of the function. Finally, interference is used to cancel out the wrong answers to produce > a > >? ? ? ?correct > >? ? ? ?> result. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> The question of where these computations are being performed is an interesting one. In the many-worlds > interpretation > >? ? ? ?of > >? ? ? ?> quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of parallel universes, each containing a different version of > reality. > >? ? ? ?In this > >? ? ? ?> interpretation, the computations are being performed in all possible universes simultaneously. The interference > that > >? ? ? ?occurs in > >? ? ? ?> Shor?s algorithm is due to the fact that some universes will produce correct results while others will not. The > correct > >? ? ? ?results > >? ? ? ?> are then selected by interference between these universes. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> It?s important to note that this is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and there are other > interpretations > >? ? ? ?that do > >? ? ? ?> not involve parallel universes. However, the many-worlds interpretation is one of the most popular and widely > studied > >? ? ? ?> interpretations. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Quantum Bayesianism: > >? ? ? ?> (376 words, 4 links) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Quantum computers are designed to harness the principles of quantum mechanics to perform complex > calculations. > >? ? ? ?Unlike > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?classical computers that use bits to represent information as either 0 or 1, quantum computers use > qubits, which > >? ? ? ?can > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?represent multiple states simultaneously through a phenomenon called superposition1. This allows quantum > >? ? ? ?computers to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?perform computations on a vast number of possibilities in parallel. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> In the case of Shor?s algorithm, the quantum computer uses its qubits to represent every number from 0 to > 2^4000 - 1 > >? ? ? ?> simultaneously2. This is made possible by exploiting the superposition property of qubits. By performing a > distinct > >? ? ? ?> mathematical calculation against each possible number, the quantum computer obtains a set of results that > contain both > >? ? ? ?correct > >? ? ? ?> and incorrect answers. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Here?s where interference comes into play. Interference is another fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. > It > >? ? ? ?allows the > >? ? ? ?> quantum computer to manipulate the probability amplitudes associated with each possible result3. Through > carefully > >? ? ? ?designed > >? ? ? ?> operations, the quantum computer can enhance the probability amplitudes of correct answers while suppressing > those of > >? ? ? ?incorrect > >? ? ? ?> answers. This process is analogous to constructive and destructive interference in wave phenomena. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> The final step involves measurement, which collapses the superposition of qubits into a single state. The > measurement > >? ? ? ?process > >? ? ? ?> reveals one of the possible results, and with high probability, it will be a correct factorization of the input > >? ? ? ?number4. The > >? ? ? ?> computations are not performed in a physical sense on atoms or particles but rather through the manipulation of > qubits > >? ? ? ?and > >? ? ? ?> their associated probability amplitudes. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> It?s important to note that while Shor?s algorithm demonstrates the potential power of quantum computers for > certain > >? ? ? ?tasks, > >? ? ? ?> building practical large-scale quantum computers is still an ongoing scientific and engineering challenge. > Researchers > >? ? ? ?are > >? ? ? ?> actively working on improving qubit stability, reducing errors, and developing error-correcting codes to make > quantum > >? ? ? ?computers > >? ? ? ?> more reliable and scalable. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Regarding Quantum Bayesianism, it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that emphasizes subjective > probabilities > >? ? ? ?and > >? ? ? ?> Bayesian reasoning. It provides an alternative perspective on how to interpret and understand quantum phenomena > but > >? ? ? ?does not > >? ? ? ?> directly address the technical aspects of how quantum computers work. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> I hope this explanation helps shed some light on how quantum computers can represent and process an enormous > number of > >? ? ? ?> possibilities simultaneously while leveraging principles from quantum mechanics. Let me know if you have any > further > >? ? ? ?questions! > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> I leave it to the reader to consider which answer explained the most and was the least obfuscatory. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> I note that only one answer even addresses my question of "where are the computations performed?" > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:34?AM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:44, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Interesting results Bill. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> If you are interested, you might try Deutsch's question on it. For example, prompting it with something > like: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> ------ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> "A quantum computer of 8000 qubits can, using Shor's algorithm, factor a 4000-bit number. This > algorithm does > >? ? ? ?so by > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?using the qubits to represent every number from 0 to 2^4000 - 1, and performing a distinct mathematical > >? ? ? ?calculation > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?against each one to get a distinct result. Finally, it uses interference to cancel out the wrong answers > to > >? ? ? ?produce a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?correct result. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> My question is: how is it that the quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and perform > 2^4000 > >? ? ? ?distinct > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? Our universe only has some 2^260 atoms in it, there's not > enough > >? ? ? ?atoms in > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?the universe to represent all these values. So then, where are all these numbers being represented? Where > in > >? ? ? ?reality are > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?all these computations being performed? They must be done somewhere given we get the correct result, > where are > >? ? ? ?they all > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?happening? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Please explain as best you can, answers to these questions assuming that XXXXX is the correct > description of > >? ? ? ?quantum > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?mechanics." > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> ------ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> You could experiment having the AI answer this question in different sessions but change XXXXX to > different > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?interpretations, such as: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> "The Copenhagen Interpretation" > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> "Many-Worlds" > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> "Pilot-wave Theory" > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> "Quantum Bayesianism" > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> The great thing about AI is we can have it answer these questions, where someone who believes in CI, > for > >? ? ? ?example, might > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?refuse to answer or ignore the question. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Well, the AI has already said that the different interpretations are > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not relevant, as the quantum computer just calculates regardless. It > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?doesn't care what nearby humans might think is happening during the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?calculation. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?A bit like we use GPS without bothering about the continual > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Einsteinian relativistic adjustments that need to be applied. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?I fear that I am getting to the stage where I don't understand either > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?the question asked or the answer received!? :) > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel has my sympathies.? :) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?BillK > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Anyway, I asked the AI - > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?How can a quantum computer represent 2^4000 distinct numbers, and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?perform 2^4000 distinct computations as it performs Shor's algorithm? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?The AI immediately replied (no thinking time required!) ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?A quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers and perform > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?2^4000 distinct computations due to its unique property of leveraging > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?quantum bits, or qubits, which can exist in multiple states > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?simultaneously. Unlike classical bits that can only be in a state of 0 > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?or 1, qubits can be in a superposition of both states at the same > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?time. This allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?on a massive scale. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?To understand how a quantum computer can represent such a large number > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of distinct numbers, we need to delve into the concept of qubit > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?superposition. In classical computing, an n-bit register can represent > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?2^n distinct numbers by assigning each bit a value of either 0 or 1. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?In contrast, a quantum computer with n qubits can represent 2^n > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?complex numbers simultaneously. This is because each qubit can be in a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?superposition of both 0 and 1 states, resulting in an exponential > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?increase in the number of possible combinations. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?In the case of representing 2^4000 distinct numbers, a quantum > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?computer would require a register consisting of 4000 qubits. Each > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?qubit can independently exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?states, allowing for an astronomical number of possible combinations. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?The total number of distinct numbers that can be represented is given > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?by 2^4000. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Similarly, when performing Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer, the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?ability to represent and manipulate such a large number of distinct > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?numbers becomes crucial. Shor's algorithm is a quantum algorithm that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?efficiently factors large integers, which has significant implications > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?for cryptography. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?The key component of Shor's algorithm is the quantum Fourier transform > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?(QFT), which enables the efficient computation of periodicity. By > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?representing the input number as a superposition of different values, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?the QFT allows for simultaneous evaluation of multiple potential > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?factors. This parallelism is what gives quantum computers their > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?exponential speedup over classical computers for certain problems. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?During the execution of Shor's algorithm, the quantum computer > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?performs a series of operations on the qubits, including modular > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?exponentiation and QFT. These operations exploit the unique properties > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of qubits to efficiently find the factors of the input number. The > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?final result is obtained through a measurement process that collapses > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?the superposition into a single outcome. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?It is important to note that while a quantum computer can represent > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?and perform computations on an exponentially large number of states, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extracting useful information from these superpositions requires > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?careful design and implementation. Quantum error correction techniques > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?are necessary to mitigate the effects of noise and decoherence, which > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?can disrupt the delicate quantum states. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?In summary, a quantum computer can represent 2^4000 distinct numbers > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?and perform 2^4000 distinct computations by utilizing qubit > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?superposition. The ability of qubits to exist in multiple states > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?simultaneously allows for an exponential increase in the number of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?possible combinations, enabling quantum computers to tackle complex > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?problems like factoring large integers using algorithms such as Shor's > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?algorithm. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?---------------------- > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From spike at rainier66.com Wed Sep 20 14:51:49 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 07:51:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs Message-ID: <00bf01d9ebd1$fce5ef80$f6b1ce80$@rainier66.com> I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now get it on internet. The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them to love us? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Wed Sep 20 15:10:02 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 17:10:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) Message-ID: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Good evening Jason, On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I think > our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific > realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and > constructive empiricism for me. What do you think? > > From wikipedia: "Scientific realism is the view that the universe described > by science is real regardless of how it may be > interpreted." > > I think that's a fair description of my view. I thought it sounded familiar! ;) > From wikipedia: "In philosophy of science and in epistemology, > instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful > instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in > explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According > to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known > either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, > properties or processes." > > I think that sounds like a good description of the position/stance you have > been arguing from. > > From wikipedia: "Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are > semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically > adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are > empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if > and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true > (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A > theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is > interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory > are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading)." > > This description isn't clear enough for me to understand. Though it seems to > support the scientific realism view more so than the > instrumentalist view, as it takes the stance that claims of a theory are > either true or false (and it seems to me, the existence of I've been reading up on it and it seems like a "middle of the road" proposal, but it is lumped together with anti-realists. I'm very much saying I'm not entirely clear where I end up and I see points in both of them. Also I agree with you that it does seem a bit "fluffy" around the edges. > objective truth requires the existence of an objective reality). I don't know > to what extent you take instrumentalism to imply any > form of anti-realism, I don't think you have argued that. Rather, you seem to > be of the opinion that theories should be taken to be > silent regarding predictions of which we haven't found the means to directly > test. Well, from a knowledge point of view, I'd say agnosticism instead of silence. However, I'm not against theorizing per se. The reason is that theories serve as inspiration and are valuable tools that do produce testable predictions. Also, what is not testable today _might_ become testable tomorrow. Of course some theories are so "far out" that I see the probability as close to zero, and some are on the edge, and some, most likely will be testable. So perhaps for me, theories reside on a scale of probabilities and the probability decreases with decreases in how testable they are. > That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of the > essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we seem to > have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you having > made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and also, > I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even though > we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it still > has been very valuable for me. > > That is wonderful. It is! Very rare as well in these polarized times. I ask myself sometimes, when was the last time I changed my mind on a political matter and the answer is that (disregarding trivial questions) those shifts tend to happen over larger periods of time. > Just this morning I was going over what I had written on relativity, and > noticed something pertinent to this discussion. Einstein > wrote his theory of special relativity in 1905. But it wasn't experimentally > confirmed until 1932, even though, by that time, nearly > all physicists had come to accept it as true. Einstein's Nobel prize, given > in 1921, wasn't for his relativity, which was still too > controversial given it had not been experimentally confirmed. Experimenters > might have thought: there's no way we can ever build > things to approach the speed of light and verify any of these predictions > anytime this century, relativity is useless, and we > shouldn't believe its predictions of time dilation, length contraction, > relativity of simultaneity, etc. but all of these were > eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create many > of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser > gyroscopes, and particle accelerators. > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation > > At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money on) > the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of > simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory) > A) After Einstein?published his paper in 1905 Probably no. > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was > a better theory I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and understanding would at least increase my confidence. > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory Now we're getting somewhere. > D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed (in > 1932) Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify would be even better. > E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been > experimentally demonstrated I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol depending on the sums of money involved. ;) > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of simultaneity > had come into common use > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical > technologies > H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference frames at > once, to witness the same two events occur in a > different order > > Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point you > would accept many-worlds: > A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957 > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was > a better theory > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds Getting closer... > D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed > (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse, > Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.) Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and verification from other teams. > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally demonstrated > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum > computer) I think here probably. > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting Many-Worlds had come into > common use (e.g., quantum computers that factor 2048-bit > RSA keys) > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical > technologies (e.g., you had rented a quantum computer on IBM > and used it to break an RSA key) > H) Only after someone invents a portal that lets us peer into or communicate > with these other worlds > > ... > > It is true that the reality described by QM is quite alien to our everyday > experience, and why math is so much better suited as a > language for physicists to describe reality. Words like "splitting", and > "branching", and "multiple universes" are very apt to be > conceived of in different ways by different readers, and should better be > considered as analogies for what the math in the theory > literally describes. I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand... what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic. I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains to experience new realities. ;) Best regards, Daniel > >? ? ? ?Then it also depends on the criterion of truth. If you have a > pragmatic > >? ? ? ?view, "truth is what works":ish, then the extrapolation will > never reach > >? ? ? ?the status of truth. > > > > Science never gets to truth, it only chases it. > > I agree with that, but see the realism vs the other options above for > some points about what science is about. > > >? ? ? ?But I think we've already touched upon these thoughts, but I > just wanted > >? ? ? ?to try a different set of words to see if perhaps it would > become more > >? ? ? ?clear what I'm trying to say or if anything else interesting > comes up. > > > >? ? ? ?Hm, on the other hand, maybe we should fold this into the other > thread? > >? ? ? ?I know you wrote about some of what I'm saying above in the > other > >? ? ? ?thread, so I think we'll get back to this subject. > > > >? ? ? ?Best regards, Daniel > > > > Yes, many of these points are in that monster of a thread. Feel free > to break out any specific items from my reply into > their own > > threads if that would be helpful. > > Yes, I'll have a look at it, and let's see. =) > > > Best, > > Jason > > ? > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason? > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From spike at rainier66.com Wed Sep 20 16:42:51 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 09:42:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: <00bf01d9ebd1$fce5ef80$f6b1ce80$@rainier66.com> References: <00bf01d9ebd1$fce5ef80$f6b1ce80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <010301d9ebe1$7f7c6cd0$7e754670$@rainier66.com> Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a lotta lotta. For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I have seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from his peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with that syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog's personality traits. spike From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: nova on dogs I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now get it on internet. The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them to love us? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 16:59:16 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:59:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: <010301d9ebe1$7f7c6cd0$7e754670$@rainier66.com> References: <00bf01d9ebd1$fce5ef80$f6b1ce80$@rainier66.com> <010301d9ebe1$7f7c6cd0$7e754670$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I know this. Chihuahuas and Pugs will never forgive us for what we've done to them. On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:44?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs > descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause > Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a lotta > lotta. > > > > For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I have > seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from his > peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with that > syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality traits. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Cc:* spike at rainier66.com > *Subject:* nova on dogs > > > > > > > > I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now get > it on internet. > > > > The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers > some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: do dogs love > us because we feed them, or do they love us because evolutionary psychology > somehow created the brain circuitry for them to love us? > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 18:37:44 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 13:37:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:11?AM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening Jason, > Good evening Daniel, > > On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > > > I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I > think > > our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific > > realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and > > constructive empiricism for me. What do you think? > > > > From wikipedia: "Scientific realism is the view that the universe > described > > by science is real regardless of how it may be > > interpreted." > > > > I think that's a fair description of my view. > > I thought it sounded familiar! ;) > :-) > > > From wikipedia: "In philosophy of science and in epistemology, > > instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful > > instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it > is in > > explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According > > to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing > known > > either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, > > properties or processes." > > > > I think that sounds like a good description of the position/stance you > have > > been arguing from. > > > > From wikipedia: "Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories > are > > semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically > > adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they > are > > empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if > > and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true > > (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A > > theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory > is > > interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory > > are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading)." > > > > This description isn't clear enough for me to understand. Though it > seems to > > support the scientific realism view more so than the > > instrumentalist view, as it takes the stance that claims of a theory are > > either true or false (and it seems to me, the existence of > > I've been reading up on it and it seems like a "middle of the road" > proposal, but it is lumped together with anti-realists. I'm very much > saying I'm not entirely clear where I end up and I see points in both of > them. > > Also I agree with you that it does seem a bit "fluffy" around the edges. > > > objective truth requires the existence of an objective reality). I don't > know > > to what extent you take instrumentalism to imply any > > form of anti-realism, I don't think you have argued that. Rather, you > seem to > > be of the opinion that theories should be taken to be > > silent regarding predictions of which we haven't found the means to > directly > > test. > > Well, from a knowledge point of view, I'd say agnosticism instead of > silence. However, I'm not against theorizing per se. The reason is that > theories serve as inspiration and are valuable tools that do produce > testable predictions. Also, what is not testable today _might_ become > testable tomorrow. Of course some theories are so "far out" that I see > the probability as close to zero, and some are on the edge, and some, > most likely will be testable. > > So perhaps for me, theories reside on a scale of probabilities and the > probability decreases with decreases in how testable they are. > > > That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of > the > > essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we > seem to > > have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you > having > > made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and > also, > > I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even > though > > we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it > still > > has been very valuable for me. > > > > That is wonderful. > > It is! Very rare as well in these polarized times. I ask myself > sometimes, when was the last time I changed my mind on a political > matter and the answer is that (disregarding trivial questions) those > shifts tend to happen over larger periods of time. > > > Just this morning I was going over what I had written on relativity, and > > noticed something pertinent to this discussion. Einstein > > wrote his theory of special relativity in 1905. But it wasn't > experimentally > > confirmed until 1932, even though, by that time, nearly > > all physicists had come to accept it as true. Einstein's Nobel prize, > given > > in 1921, wasn't for his relativity, which was still too > > controversial given it had not been experimentally confirmed. > Experimenters > > might have thought: there's no way we can ever build > > things to approach the speed of light and verify any of these > predictions > > anytime this century, relativity is useless, and we > > shouldn't believe its predictions of time dilation, length contraction, > > relativity of simultaneity, etc. but all of these were > > eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create > many > > of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser > > gyroscopes, and particle accelerators. > > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation > > > > At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money > on) > > the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of > > simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory) > > > A) After Einstein published his paper in 1905 > > Probably no. > > > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why > it was > > a better theory > > I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and understanding > would at least increase my confidence. > I would say to give it a shot. There are a lot of equations, but also a lot of plain english explanations, built up constructively from simple definitions, such as clocks and simultaneity: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_male tin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf (Here is his original paper translated to English) > > > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory > > Now we're getting somewhere. > > > D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed > (in > > 1932) > > Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify would be > even better. > One thing which is quite clear in relativity, is how interdependent all the predictions of the theory are. For instance, the prediction of time-dilation (where two observers measure time differently) automatically implies the existence of length-contraction (where two observers measure distances differently). If one did not imply the other, they would not agree on the speed of light being constant. Moreover, time-dilation and length-contraction together also imply relativity of simultaneity. Again, if not for this phenomenon, the whole theory would break down. This is why testing and confirming even a single element of a theory, is enough to provide confidence in the other predictions of a theory. > > > E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been > > experimentally demonstrated > > I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol depending on > the sums of money involved. ;) > > > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of > simultaneity > > had come into common use > > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical > > technologies > > H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference > frames at > > once, to witness the same two events occur in a > > different order > > > > Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point > you > > would accept many-worlds: > > A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957 > > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why > it was > > a better theory > > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds > > Getting closer... > I think that is perhaps a good heuristic for deciding what to put in a science textbook, but I don't think it's the best method for one interested in seeking the truth (as we currently best understand it). Of course, to venture beyond the level of what has sufficient consensus to be included in a textbook, one has to do some work in order to understand the various theories to be able to compare their relative merits and weaknesses. This article asks, why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in school: https://theconversation.com/why-dont-we-teach-einsteins-theories-in-school-69991 when it's been well over a century since Einstein's theory overturned Newtonian mechanics, and we've confirmed essentially every prediction the theory has made. > > > D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed > > (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse, > > Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.) > > Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and > verification from other teams. > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have been replicated numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. For anyone who believes relativity's prediction that nothing travels faster than light, the only way we can explain this experimental result is with Many-Worlds. Those who subscribe to single-universe interpretations retreat to saying "well this effect can't be used to transmit useful information faster than light, even though it transmits a random result faster than light, and relativity only prohibits sending information faster than light" -- but this isn't what relativity says, relativity says causality can't travel faster than the speed of light, and the spooky action, despite not being able to transmit meaningful information, is nonetheless a violation of causal influences traveling faster than light. It is why Einstein objected so strongly to this implication of single-universe QM (at the time physicists were not so bold as to propose or even consider that QM implied many-worlds), but MW resolved all the problems Einstein had with the theory: it made QM local (no spooky action), deterministic (God doesn't play dice), and realistic (the moon still exists when no one is looking at it). Therefore, I believe that had Einstein lived to see Everett's paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly. > > > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally > demonstrated > > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum > > computer) > > I think here probably. > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a personality trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is. > > > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting Many-Worlds had come > into > > common use (e.g., quantum computers that factor 2048-bit > > RSA keys) > > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical > > technologies (e.g., you had rented a quantum computer on IBM > > and used it to break an RSA key) > > H) Only after someone invents a portal that lets us peer into or > communicate > > with these other worlds > > > > > ... > > > > It is true that the reality described by QM is quite alien to our > everyday > > experience, and why math is so much better suited as a > > language for physicists to describe reality. Words like "splitting", and > > "branching", and "multiple universes" are very apt to be > > conceived of in different ways by different readers, and should better > be > > considered as analogies for what the math in the theory > > literally describes. > > I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that > this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads > around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand... > what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up > and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic. > > I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our > brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science > fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains > to experience new realities. ;) > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted. "Physical quantities like the speed of light, the attraction of electric charges, and the strength of gravity are, for us, the unchanging foundation on which everything is built. But if our existence is a product of self-interpretation in the space of all possible worlds, this stability may simply reflect the delicacy of our own construction---our biochemistry malfunctions in worlds where the physical constants vary, and we would cease to be there. Thus, we always find ourselves in a world where the constants are just what is needed to keep us functioning. For the same reason, we find the rules have held steady over a long period, so evolution could accumulate our many intricate, interlocking internal mechanisms. Our engineered descendants will be more flexible. Perhaps mind-hosting bodies can be constructed that are adjustable for small changes in, say, the speed of light. An individual who installed itself in such a body, and then adjusted it for a slightly higher lightspeed, should then find itself in a physical universe appropriately altered, since it could then exist in no other. It would be a one-way trip. Acquaintances in old-style bodies would be seen to die---among fireworks everywhere, as formerly stable atoms and compounds disintegrated. Turning the tuning knob back would not restore the lost continuity of life and substance. Back in the old universe everything would be normal, only the acquaintances would witness an odd ``suicide by tuning knob.'' Such irreversible partings of the way occur elsewhere in physics. The many-worlds interpretation calls for them, subtly, at every recorded observation." -- Hans Moravec in "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence " (1998) "But perhaps when we forget something, this is equivalent to the memory resetting scenario discussed in this article. This depends on whether or not the lost memory has affected our consciousness. So, if we watch a recording of a soccer match played a long time ago, the outcome is undetermined, not just if we are watching the match for the first time and never read about the outcome, but perhaps also if we?ve seen the match before and forgot about the outcome." -- Saibal Mitra "Changing the past by forgetting " (2010) "One?s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains many possible ?parallel universes?, and that we have selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad isn?t about ?parallel universes?, it?s about universes that are entangled at the finest possible level. And an important consequence of this is that it means we?re not ?stuck in a particular parallel universe?. Instead, we can expect that by somehow ?changing our point of view?, we can effectively find ourselves in a ?different universe?." -- Stephen Wolfram in ?The Concept of the Ruliad ? (2021) Best, Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 20:50:59 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:50:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: References: <00bf01d9ebd1$fce5ef80$f6b1ce80$@rainier66.com> <010301d9ebe1$7f7c6cd0$7e754670$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Even more so - English Bulldog. bill w On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 12:01?PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I know this. Chihuahuas and Pugs will never forgive us for what we've done > to them. > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:44?AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs >> descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause >> Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a lotta >> lotta. >> >> >> >> For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I have >> seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from his >> peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with that >> syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality traits. >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* spike at rainier66.com >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM >> *To:* 'ExI chat list' >> *Cc:* spike at rainier66.com >> *Subject:* nova on dogs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now get >> it on internet. >> >> >> >> The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers >> some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: do dogs love >> us because we feed them, or do they love us because evolutionary psychology >> somehow created the brain circuitry for them to love us? >> >> >> >> spike >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Sep 20 20:54:19 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 13:54:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: References: <00bf01d9ebd1$fce5ef80$f6b1ce80$@rainier66.com> <010301d9ebe1$7f7c6cd0$7e754670$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004101d9ec04$a0ddb910$e2992b30$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] nova on dogs Even more so - English Bulldog. bill w Thanks for that Billw. Classic big dumb sweetheart beast is the English Bulldog. Loves everybody. Dumber than a box of rocks, assuming the rocks were carefully pre-selected for dumb. spike On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 12:01?PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat > wrote: I know this. Chihuahuas and Pugs will never forgive us for what we've done to them. On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:44?AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a lotta lotta. For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I have seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from his peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with that syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality traits. spike From: spike at rainier66.com > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM To: 'ExI chat list' > Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: nova on dogs I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now get it on internet. The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them to love us? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Wed Sep 20 22:02:35 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 00:02:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs Message-ID: <4facfe35-0b67-75bd-d933-1f7ccf479ba9@swisscows.email> And what about the reverse? Have we adapted to love small fluffy things? Is it natures way, to protect the children of animals, to make them small and fluffy? Best regards, Daniel On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > > Amazing stuff, ja?? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs descend > from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that > cause Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans.? If they are right, it explains a > lotta lotta.? > > ? > > For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us.? I have > seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin > from his peoples.? Could he be a wolf with WBS?? I have met a human with that > syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s > personality traits. > > ? > > spike > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > > ? > > From: spike at rainier66.com > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Cc: spike at rainier66.com > Subject: nova on dogs > > ? > > ? > > ? > > I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.)? I now get it > on internet.? > > ? > > The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park.? It answers some > questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: > do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because evolutionary > psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them > to love us? > > ? > > spike > > From spike at rainier66.com Wed Sep 20 22:19:44 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:19:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: <4facfe35-0b67-75bd-d933-1f7ccf479ba9@swisscows.email> References: <4facfe35-0b67-75bd-d933-1f7ccf479ba9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <008201d9ec10$8f49a360$addcea20$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of efc--- via extropy-chat Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 3:03 PM To: spike jones via extropy-chat Cc: efc at swisscows.email Subject: Re: [ExI] nova on dogs And what about the reverse? Have we adapted to love small fluffy things? Is it natures way, to protect the children of animals, to make them small and fluffy? Best regards, Daniel Entirely plausible Daniel. Human evolution was likely influenced by our domestic beasts. We came to rely on guard dogs, we used horses for transportation, mules and oxen for pulling plows, cattle for food, sheep for clothing and food. No doubt all of these influenced the way humanity developed. spike On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs > descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause > Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a > lotta lotta. > > > > For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I > have seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from > his peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with > that syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality > traits. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: spike at rainier66.com > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Cc: spike at rainier66.com > Subject: nova on dogs > > > > > > > > I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now > get it on internet. > > > > The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers > some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: > do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because > evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them > to love us? > > > > spike > > From dsunley at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 22:49:02 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:49:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: <008201d9ec10$8f49a360$addcea20$@rainier66.com> References: <4facfe35-0b67-75bd-d933-1f7ccf479ba9@swisscows.email> <008201d9ec10$8f49a360$addcea20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Mammals instinctively feel protective towards other mammals whose eyes are large for their head and whose heads are large for their bodies. It inhibits otherwise infanticidal males from killing the newborn young of females they want to mate with. The interesting question is why this works in humans despite the huge difference in "fuzziness" between human babies and literally other mammal species. Would human babies be cuter if they had a soft, downy coat that they gradually lost over their first year? On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 4:21?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > efc--- via extropy-chat > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 3:03 PM > To: spike jones via extropy-chat > Cc: efc at swisscows.email > Subject: Re: [ExI] nova on dogs > > And what about the reverse? Have we adapted to love small fluffy things? > Is it natures way, to protect the children of animals, to make them small > and fluffy? > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > Entirely plausible Daniel. Human evolution was likely influenced by our > domestic beasts. We came to rely on guard dogs, we used horses for > transportation, mules and oxen for pulling plows, cattle for food, sheep > for clothing and food. No doubt all of these influenced the way humanity > developed. > > spike > > > > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs > > descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause > > Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a > > lotta lotta. > > > > > > > > For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I > > have seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from > > his peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with > > that syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality > > traits. > > > > > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: spike at rainier66.com > > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM > > To: 'ExI chat list' > > Cc: spike at rainier66.com > > Subject: nova on dogs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now > > get it on internet. > > > > > > > > The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers > > some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: > > do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because > > evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them > > to love us? > > > > > > > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 23:25:46 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:25:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: I have doubts that many worlds can be experienced in base reality (assuming we live in base reality). But in the uploaded state, it is no problem. Assuming you have enough memory and processing power, there is no difficulty in making tweaks in the simulated reality. You can also checkpoint the simulation from time to time and reenter the simulation at one of those points. Time travel also seems to be ruled out of base reality but this is a way we could do something subjectively equivalent. Hmm. Perhaps data centers hundreds of times the area of the Earth are minimal. Best wishes, Keith On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:39?AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:11?AM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> Good evening Jason, > > > Good evening Daniel, >> >> >> On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> > I think you are right. I did have a look through wikipedia, and I think >> > our differences might be sorted under the categories of scientific >> > realism for you, vs some kind of shift between instrumentalism and >> > constructive empiricism for me. What do you think? >> > >> > From wikipedia: "Scientific realism is the view that the universe described >> > by science is real regardless of how it may be >> > interpreted." >> > >> > I think that's a fair description of my view. >> >> I thought it sounded familiar! ;) > > > :-) > >> >> >> > From wikipedia: "In philosophy of science and in epistemology, >> > instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful >> > instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in >> > explaining and predicting natural phenomena. According >> > to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known >> > either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, >> > properties or processes." >> > >> > I think that sounds like a good description of the position/stance you have >> > been arguing from. >> > >> > From wikipedia: "Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are >> > semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically >> > adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are >> > empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if >> > and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true >> > (regardless of what it says about unobservable entities). A >> > theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is >> > interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory >> > are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading)." >> > >> > This description isn't clear enough for me to understand. Though it seems to >> > support the scientific realism view more so than the >> > instrumentalist view, as it takes the stance that claims of a theory are >> > either true or false (and it seems to me, the existence of >> >> I've been reading up on it and it seems like a "middle of the road" >> proposal, but it is lumped together with anti-realists. I'm very much >> saying I'm not entirely clear where I end up and I see points in both of >> them. >> >> Also I agree with you that it does seem a bit "fluffy" around the edges. >> >> > objective truth requires the existence of an objective reality). I don't know >> > to what extent you take instrumentalism to imply any >> > form of anti-realism, I don't think you have argued that. Rather, you seem to >> > be of the opinion that theories should be taken to be >> > silent regarding predictions of which we haven't found the means to directly >> > test. >> >> Well, from a knowledge point of view, I'd say agnosticism instead of >> silence. However, I'm not against theorizing per se. The reason is that >> theories serve as inspiration and are valuable tools that do produce >> testable predictions. Also, what is not testable today _might_ become >> testable tomorrow. Of course some theories are so "far out" that I see >> the probability as close to zero, and some are on the edge, and some, >> most likely will be testable. >> >> So perhaps for me, theories reside on a scale of probabilities and the >> probability decreases with decreases in how testable they are. >> >> > That makes sense, and for me, as you know by now, the test is of the >> > essence, and without tests, its an interpretation. But yes, we seem to >> > have reached an impasse here, but, we the added benefit of you having >> > made me think really hard about why I believe what I believe, and also, >> > I feel I understand MWI and QM much better than before. So even though >> > we might have reached the point where we agree to disagree, it still >> > has been very valuable for me. >> > >> > That is wonderful. >> >> It is! Very rare as well in these polarized times. I ask myself >> sometimes, when was the last time I changed my mind on a political >> matter and the answer is that (disregarding trivial questions) those >> shifts tend to happen over larger periods of time. >> >> > Just this morning I was going over what I had written on relativity, and >> > noticed something pertinent to this discussion. Einstein >> > wrote his theory of special relativity in 1905. But it wasn't experimentally >> > confirmed until 1932, even though, by that time, nearly >> > all physicists had come to accept it as true. Einstein's Nobel prize, given >> > in 1921, wasn't for his relativity, which was still too >> > controversial given it had not been experimentally confirmed. Experimenters >> > might have thought: there's no way we can ever build >> > things to approach the speed of light and verify any of these predictions >> > anytime this century, relativity is useless, and we >> > shouldn't believe its predictions of time dilation, length contraction, >> > relativity of simultaneity, etc. but all of these were >> > eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create many >> > of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser >> > gyroscopes, and particle accelerators. >> > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation >> > >> > At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money on) >> > the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of >> > simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory) >> >> > A) After Einstein published his paper in 1905 >> >> Probably no. >> >> > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was >> > a better theory >> >> I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and understanding >> would at least increase my confidence. > > > I would say to give it a shot. There are a lot of equations, but also a lot of plain english explanations, built up constructively from simple definitions, such as clocks and simultaneity: > http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_male tin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf (Here is his original paper translated to English) > >> >> >> > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory >> >> Now we're getting somewhere. >> >> > D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed (in >> > 1932) >> >> Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify would be >> even better. > > > One thing which is quite clear in relativity, is how interdependent all the predictions of the theory are. For instance, the prediction of time-dilation (where two observers measure time differently) automatically implies the existence of length-contraction (where two observers measure distances differently). If one did not imply the other, they would not agree on the speed of light being constant. Moreover, time-dilation and length-contraction together also imply relativity of simultaneity. Again, if not for this phenomenon, the whole theory would break down. This is why testing and confirming even a single element of a theory, is enough to provide confidence in the other predictions of a theory. > >> >> >> > E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been >> > experimentally demonstrated >> >> I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol depending on >> the sums of money involved. ;) >> >> > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of simultaneity >> > had come into common use >> > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical >> > technologies >> > H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference frames at >> > once, to witness the same two events occur in a >> > different order >> > >> > Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point you >> > would accept many-worlds: >> > A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957 >> > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was >> > a better theory >> > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds >> >> Getting closer... > > > I think that is perhaps a good heuristic for deciding what to put in a science textbook, but I don't think it's the best method for one interested in seeking the truth (as we currently best understand it). Of course, to venture beyond the level of what has sufficient consensus to be included in a textbook, one has to do some work in order to understand the various theories to be able to compare their relative merits and weaknesses. > > This article asks, why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in school: https://theconversation.com/why-dont-we-teach-einsteins-theories-in-school-69991 when it's been well over a century since Einstein's theory overturned Newtonian mechanics, and we've confirmed essentially every prediction the theory has made. > >> >> >> > D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed >> > (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse, >> > Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.) >> >> Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and >> verification from other teams. > > > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have been replicated numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. > > For anyone who believes relativity's prediction that nothing travels faster than light, the only way we can explain this experimental result is with Many-Worlds. Those who subscribe to single-universe interpretations retreat to saying "well this effect can't be used to transmit useful information faster than light, even though it transmits a random result faster than light, and relativity only prohibits sending information faster than light" -- but this isn't what relativity says, relativity says causality can't travel faster than the speed of light, and the spooky action, despite not being able to transmit meaningful information, is nonetheless a violation of causal influences traveling faster than light. It is why Einstein objected so strongly to this implication of single-universe QM (at the time physicists were not so bold as to propose or even consider that QM implied many-worlds), but MW resolved all the problems Einstein had with the theory: it made QM local (no spooky action), deterministic (God doesn't play dice), and realistic (the moon still exists when no one is looking at it). Therefore, I believe that had Einstein lived to see Everett's paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly. > >> >> >> > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally demonstrated >> > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum >> > computer) >> >> I think here probably. > > > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a personality trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is. > >> >> >> > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting Many-Worlds had come into >> > common use (e.g., quantum computers that factor 2048-bit >> > RSA keys) >> > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical >> > technologies (e.g., you had rented a quantum computer on IBM >> > and used it to break an RSA key) >> > H) Only after someone invents a portal that lets us peer into or communicate >> > with these other worlds >> > >> > >> ... >> > >> > It is true that the reality described by QM is quite alien to our everyday >> > experience, and why math is so much better suited as a >> > language for physicists to describe reality. Words like "splitting", and >> > "branching", and "multiple universes" are very apt to be >> > conceived of in different ways by different readers, and should better be >> > considered as analogies for what the math in the theory >> > literally describes. >> >> I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that >> this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads >> around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand... >> what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up >> and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic. >> >> I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our >> brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science >> fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains >> to experience new realities. ;) > > > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted. > > > "Physical quantities like the speed of light, the attraction of electric charges, and the strength of gravity are, for us, the unchanging foundation on which everything is built. But if our existence is a product of self-interpretation in the space of all possible worlds, this stability may simply reflect the delicacy of our own construction---our biochemistry malfunctions in worlds where the physical constants vary, and we would cease to be there. Thus, we always find ourselves in a world where the constants are just what is needed to keep us functioning. For the same reason, we find the rules have held steady over a long period, so evolution could accumulate our many intricate, interlocking internal mechanisms. > > Our engineered descendants will be more flexible. Perhaps mind-hosting bodies can be constructed that are adjustable for small changes in, say, the speed of light. An individual who installed itself in such a body, and then adjusted it for a slightly higher lightspeed, should then find itself in a physical universe appropriately altered, since it could then exist in no other. It would be a one-way trip. Acquaintances in old-style bodies would be seen to die---among fireworks everywhere, as formerly stable atoms and compounds disintegrated. Turning the tuning knob back would not restore the lost continuity of life and substance. Back in the old universe everything would be normal, only the acquaintances would witness an odd ``suicide by tuning knob.'' Such irreversible partings of the way occur elsewhere in physics. The many-worlds interpretation calls for them, subtly, at every recorded observation." > > -- Hans Moravec in "Simulation, Consciousness, Existence" (1998) > > > "But perhaps when we forget something, this is equivalent to the memory resetting scenario discussed in this article. This depends on whether or not the lost memory has affected our consciousness. So, if we watch a recording of a soccer match played a long time ago, the outcome is undetermined, not just if we are watching the match for the first time and never read about the outcome, but perhaps also if we?ve seen the match before and forgot about the outcome." > -- Saibal Mitra "Changing the past by forgetting" (2010) > > "One?s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains many possible ?parallel universes?, and that we have selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad isn?t about ?parallel universes?, it?s about universes that are entangled at the finest possible level. And an important consequence of this is that it means we?re not ?stuck in a particular parallel universe?. Instead, we can expect that by somehow ?changing our point of view?, we can effectively find ourselves in a ?different universe?." > -- Stephen Wolfram in ?The Concept of the Ruliad? (2021) > > > > Best, > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 21 09:53:57 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:53:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <81c8b5ce-1b1f-899f-408f-f3d4a775f37c@swisscows.email> Good evening Jason, Wife is sleeping, so now I can pursue my guilty pleasures such as continuing the mega-thread! ;) On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > I have a feeling that this dialogue is slowly getting to a stand still, > at least from my side. I do not think I have the knowledge to interpret > or understand what you are saying, (as seen below where I thought you > were talking about quantum mechanics but in fact you were talkingabout > ensemble-type theories) > > It was my fault for the confusing example. My only point, which I think you agreed to an extent with in the other thread, is that if > a theory makes multiple predictions, (like general relativity), and we test many of them and find the ones we have tested to be true, > then it increases our confidence in the theory and thereby increases our confidence in the theory itself. If that theory makes other > predictions which we have not yet tested, then we have *some confidence* in those untested predictions. Yes, I think that is reasonable, especially when high lighted with extremely silly examples. When asked about the interiors of black holes, I would say that it is more probable that Einstein is right, than that inside every black hole there sits a chaos monkey causing chaos. Regardless of where you are on the realism anti-realism scale, I would think that most, if not all, would rule out the chaos monkey. The most extreme I could imagine is the position of complete agnosticism, but even extreme agnosticism must agree with the theoretical equations, regardles of if he thinks we'll ever know for sure or not. > Now there are a number of theories in science which we have tested and confirmed, which we have obtained direct observational > evidence for, which, as it happens, also predict elements of reality beyond what we can see in this universe.? I would probably say postulate, or something similar. Prediction to me, needs to be verified. Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I probably get the nuances wrong. > Some, like eternal inflation, predict other big bangs, each forming it's own own "bubble universe". > ... (examples) ... > > Science is full of theories that predict things we cannot interact with. These are nonetheless predictions of theories we have > tested, and obtained observational evidence for. > > It seems we have two choices: > 1. Reject these theories (for predicting things we cannot see or test). > 2. Accept these theories (along with their implication that reality is bigger than what we can see from our present vantage point) Or 3, remain agnostic or 4, letting the equations do the talking without human interpretations. I would like to draw a line between what, within a theory, we can test and prove/disprove, and beyond that line, we statements of the theory we cannot currently (or never) test or prove. I think the tools and concepts on each side of this line, should be treated differently. I do not, however, think that we should stop theorizing. I think the utility of these extrapolations is in inspiration and motivation, that makes us push further. I agree that too much or too strict agnosticism could lead to us stopping to expand the horizons. So I agree with some, but I would still like to uphold a difference of the content of theories between provable and extrapolation, but both have their value and their use. > I don't think we should reject these theories on account of them implying reality is bigger than what we can see. Why should we > suppose we should be in a position to survey all of reality? I agree. Even the most outrageous theory can still serve as a mental tool that manages to create new knowledge and new technology. > and as the nr of books and links is increasing > that I would have to go through, to provide you with good answers, I > find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. And that is > not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) Ok, they > might be better than the math and physics skills of the average person, > but not anywhere close to the skills of this list. > > I think you may be selling yourself short. We all begin somewhere. I did not major in math or physics, I've just tried to read a lot > as science as a subject has always interested me. Much of what I have learned has come from discussions with others on lists like > this one. Thank you. I just feel frustrated when the content outpaces my available time. But I'll try to hang in there for a while yet. ;) > I also don't think any special math or science background is required to understand most of the arguments used for different QM > interpretations. Ah, but this goes into the language idea I had, that when we humanize the equations, this could lead to errors and wrong ideas. But as I said in the other thread, what else can we do? At most, hope for some kind of Arrival language, that changes the structure of the brain to enable us to look beyond. ;) > So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I would not > be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything you are > saying. > > I would be happy to answer any questions, privately or on the list, you might have if anything I say requires additional explanation. Thank Jason, I'll keep that in mind. > But, let's see. I'll have a look below, and let's see how it goes, but I > feel like I'm approaching my limit in terms of knowledge and time, and > as Wittgenstein said... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be > silent". ;) > > I would make one amendment to Wittgenstein: "Should you venture where one cannot speak, ask questions!" > I'm sure if things I say are unclear to you, there are others on this list it is unclear to also. Good point! > > Note: I am not discussing QM as a theory here. I am discussing a theory that *predicts QM*. (I know this is confusing > given the other > > discussions of interpretations of QM below, but this has nothing to do with QM as a theory, this has to do with a more > general > > underlying ensemble theory, which can predict and account for why the universe happens to be quantum mechanical in the > first place. > > QM cannot do this.) > > Ahhh... this I know nothing about. I misunderstood. So that would > probably mean a new beginning for me and a lot of reading I suspect. > > I would guess this work is so new and esoteric they it remains unknown to 99.9% of physicists. But the point is really simple: That's a shame! I assume it would make it harder to find different angles and explanations. > No one knew why nature is quantum mechanical. It appeared one of the most profound mysteries, it tormented many of the founders of > the theory. Wheeler spent his whole life trying in vain to understand why it was this way. That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A whole life!! > And only very recently have a few researchers offered a plausible answer. The one thing their explanations share in common is they > are ultimate ensemble-type theories (an infinite comprehensive reality where all possibilities exist). As it turns out, if you start > with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is quantum mechanical. But it is just an assumption? And can the assumption ever be proven? It sounds as it by definition, touches things completely outside our reality, and then it seems to me that they will be forever assumptions. After all, many people "assume" a god or a creator (however you want to define it) but no matter the assumption, it is not the same as hard empirical proof. > > When you understand I am talking about this more fundamental theory, then you will see my point regarding how we can > have > > observational evidence that supports the conclusion of a reality beyond this one. > > Here we have the problem. In my current state, with so many years > between me now, and me in university, this means very little to me. > Therefore I cannot comment on what you say. I would like to, but I > cannot. Very sorry. =( > > No worries, I can give you a one line summary: > > Starting from the assumption that every possible observation exists, you can derive the Shrodinger equation (the key equation of > quantum mechanics). Is that the only way to derive the equation? Or are there others? > >? ? ? ?I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, it is > >? ? ? ?up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do not > >? ? ? ?find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable > >? ? ? ?intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to > >? ? ? ?metaphysical chaos. > > > > Of course. I agree observation evidence is crucial. My point is that we have it, that is, we have observed our universe > to obey the > > Shrodinger equation, and this is evidence for *the more fundamental theory* which predicts a universe governed by the > Shrodinger > > equation. > > I think this might enter Tegmark territory, and my opinion still stands > unchanged. We have observed equations predict events. We then > extrapolate things we will (most likely) never be able to prove. They > will forever remain extrapolations. > > Every time we use any physical theory to make a prediction, we are performing an extrapolation. There are an infinite number of > potential extrapolations any given theory can make. But we only ever test a finite number (that is, an infinitesimal fraction) of > them. If we are confident in a theory, why can't we be confident in the untested predictions of that theory? Because it depends on if those untested claims can be tested or not. Yes, we can have varying degrees of belief in them, but we can not claim that we have direct knowledge, and for me, that is an important difference that keeps us from letting out speculations lose touch with reality. Keeping in mind the distinction between knowledge and degree of belief I think is good to keep us grounded. That being said however, theories are important mental tools for the reasons I outlined above. > Lawrence post on the extropolis list struck a chord with me, and I think > it perhaps better illustrates my view of the difference between proof > and extrapolations: > > "People who go down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations find themselves in a nest of thorns and nettles. No matter > what > interpretation it is the attempt to make it something derivable or the single only consistent interpretation leads into a > growing > mire of complexity that does not close. Carroll and others working on MWI are clearly entering this. Other > interpretations similarly > hit this reef. The best interpretation is no interpretation. All interpretations are attempts to make quantum mechanics > transduced > into our ordinary way of thinking, but QM is logically different in a way that makes this impossible. As Wittgenstein put > it, "That > which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." That is the best advice with respect to quantum interpretations." > > This is one reason why I stress that MW is not an interpretation. It's just the raw math and equations of QM, accepted as true. You > don't need to add any further interpretation of them. I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM equations, and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory. It is also listed under interpretations, and to me, it seems like an interpretation among many that theorize and try to explain how the qm equations work. > Regardless, this illustrates something I thought a lot about, and that > is moving from equations to verbal descriptions. That aspect of > theoretical physics, moving from nrs and equations, to putting it into > words, has always fascinated me, and I would not be surprised if that > might perhaps be a source of error and confusion. Our words and > languagesare not mathematical and number based, so maybe a distortion > does take place when we translate between the two languages? > > I don't really see that as the issue here. CI says the universe does not obey the equations of QM always. It's not merely using > different words to explain the same math, it's proposing that the math of the theory is wrong, and that reality is governed by > different math than is it expressed by the equations of QM. This different math would describe the process of observation and Well, here I agree based on how I understand CI vs MWI. If I understand you correctly CI needs some adjustment of the equation right, which MWI does not need? Please correct me here. So CI according to what I said (or read) above, would perhaps move closer to becoming an additional theory since it modifies or adjusts the equation? I'm on deep water here, so take it with a grain of salt. > measurement which would say when the universe stops obeying QM during wave function collapse. But no advocate of CI, other than > perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would be. If advocates of CI did propose alternate mathematical Give them time! ;) > descriptions for their theory, it would be clear that MW and Copenhagen are different theories. CI refuses to make such > specifications which keeps the waters muddied, and maintains the illusion that no possible test can be done to distinguish between > them. Refuses to make such specifications... yet. ;) Another justification for my agnosticism is that we've not reached the finish line and many things and geniuses could come and go. Sadly, as you said in the example of heliocentrism, it can take 100s of years. =( > But nothing prevents us from not doing it either. The one thing that > does help is observable evidence. And extrapolating to other universes > and other realms I think definitely makes that more difficult. The tool > "breaks down" so to speak. > > Can we not reach agreement that relativity implies that other points in time exist, even though we can never travel to these other > times to confirm their existence? Since we live "in time" I find that proposition easier to swallow, than universes completely beyond this one. So my degree of belief is higher in points in time, partly supported by my human experience. > As I said, when smart people created and performed the experiments that > prove MWI (or any other interpretation) beyond doubt, I'll gladly join > the choire if I understand the proof. If it is not possible to produce a > proof that I can understand, I'll withhold judgement until I do, or > until there is a comfortable consensus, although that can be deadly too. > > I think there already are proofs you could understand. Given your technical background, and interest in cryptography, I would start > with the ability of quantum computers to factor RSA keys. All you need consider is Deutsch's question: when a quantum computer > factors a number that requires the evaluation of 10^500 unique states, where is that computation being performed (when our universe > has just 10^80 atoms)? The right answer comes out, but where did it come from? How was it computed? But, based on Bills input, I don't see it as conclusive evidence of MWI. I see it as a frontier that is not yet understood. Among the many ways it could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it could work. > >? ? ? ?But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is performed, that > >? ? ? ?brings final evidence for MWI,? > > > >? ? ? ?that would be filtered through experts, > >? ? ? ?replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then shoot up > >? ? ? ?to close to 100%. > > I think you may be overly optimistic about how quickly these things happen. It took 100 years for people to accept Copernicus's idea > after his book was published. People do not expand their ontologies readily. Most likely true. It takes time. At the end of the day, we're only human (at the moment). > > I think you would still have to wait for the CI adherents to die off, as Planck suggested: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle > > As it is, I think the existence of working quantum computers already constitutes such proof for MW. Bell's experiment > too, is proof > > of MW, if you believe special relativity is true and nothing travels faster than light. > > Nice methodology. ;) I've seen other proposals for other experiments > which have or have not proven other interpretations. > > I am interested to see these if you can provide links. Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments "An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the potential validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil droplets. In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a vibrating fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves produced by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical behavior with remarkable accuracy". > So we'll see. As > you said in an earlier message, the MWI:ers are increasing, but > Copenhagen is still in the lead. On the other hand, science is not a > democracy, so all it takes is one person being right and one proof. This > is why I do not like my own approach of looking at the comfortable > consensus. But, not being a theoretical physicist, what else can such a > man do? =( > > Yes this is a big problem. There's so many specialized disciplines an not enough time to become proficient in more than a m small few > of them. > > Perhaps the best bet for people on our position is to read books by physicists for popular audiences. Read two books by two prominent > representatives from opposing sides of an issue, and weigh the strengths of their arguments. Yes, I think that is a good start. But the time restriction still stands, so we have to choose our topics carefully. ;) It reminds me of the book the improvement of the mind by Isac Watts and to some extent How to think by Henry Hazlitt. I find it so wonderful how they thought that man should pick an area of science and study it for its own pleasure and thereby improve his mind. Then engage in thoughtful debate and conversation to make sure the best ideas survive. I then look at public discourse today and I think that both men would rotate in their graves. ;) > > It is good to acknowledge this. So then, do I take it that your objection to MW is not that we cannot see them, but > that there is not > > yet a consensus of scientists that accepts them? > > Yes and no. A time proven consensus of scientists will definitely tilt > me in favour of the concept. The other thing which annoys me, and I know > you have tried to explain it, but I do not understand it, is that there > can be no bi-directional information flow between them. So to me, it > seems like a pointless theory. > > I wouldn't say it's pointless. I think understanding MW as an implication of QM was crucial to the conception and invention of > quantum computers. Both Feynman and Deutsch believe in many worlds, and both contributed to their realization. > > > I think your Tegmark book and my reply to > that page you quoted would probably be as far as I would be willing to > go. So I'm not in principle opposed to MWI due to any spiritual grounds, > and as you say, once a time tested consensus appears, I will be more > likely to accept that theory, and... I do hope that by then, the > explanations and experiments which will have created this consensus will > have been translated into language and explanation which someone like me > can understand. > > > Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" book. I might recommend that if you want to see his best attempt at > explaining it. Thank you Jason, I've added it to my book list. > No, I do not see them as equivalent. Instead of me defining the > difference between these 5 terms, take me to the next step of your > argument, and I'll take it from there. > > Sorry I was unclear. I did not mean to compare all five, but rather to ask to compare (math, logic, reason, and philosophy) vs. > language games. Ahh, got it! Well, to start with I'd change the grouping to (reason), (math, logic), (philosophy), (language games). Reason underlying all activities. Math and logic being important tools in science and philosophy. Language games (depending on how you define language) can then be played outside of any of the activities such as in theological debate, within the limits of a social game, but also within the setting of science, religion and within philosophy. > Most nominalists say, for example, that math is only a language game. So I was curious if this was the basis for saying the same of > other fields, such as theology. No, I think it was the theology that triggered me here, since I don't play that game according to the rules of theologists, which makes those discussions fairly meaningless to me, unless we beforehand go through "the rules". > > like "If omniscience is inconsistent, then if God exists, God is not omniscient." > > Well, since I do not believe in god, theology for me is just wordplay. > > There are an infinite number of possible conceptions of God. So I do not know what you mean when you say you do not believe in God. Sorry my bad! Again theology is what spooked me, and I was referring to the bearded man in the sky. > Many religions define God as the cause of existence. If you believe this universe has a cause then you believe in the God of these > religions. Yes, of course. If we start to hack away at god and modify the concept, I am certain you can make me a believer depending on the definition. =) > Sikhs, among other religions, define God as truth. If you believe in Truth, then you believe in the god of the Sikhs. ... (good examples)... > And so on... > > So the statement that one doesn't believe in God is rather empty, absent further specification. Agreed! > To me, it is meaningless. If you do believe in god, I fully respect > that, and of course it follows that theology is important to you. Since > I do not, my opinion is that it gives us nothing. > > Science and rationality can be applied far more broadly than most are aware. It can penetrate questions and topics usually assumed to > belong forever to the sphere of religion, such as questions like: why we exist, why we are here, the meaning of life, and what > happens after we die, do we have free will, etc. Well, here I am not in agreement with you. I did read your blog entry on the meaning of life for instance, and I do like the way you structured it, but I do not buy your conclusion. But that might perhaps be another mega-thread? =) > It's not that theology is important to me, what's important is that science not shy away from any subject, including theology. Doing > so would be a disservice to both science and religion. Again, I think here I do not agree. Science can of course investigate the phenomenon of religion from a social and psychological point of view, but it can never explain it. Traditional religion as exprienced phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science. > > For example, see these sections from my articles: > >? *? https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts > >? *? https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife > >? *? https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God > > I think there is no rational evidence of god. > > You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of any? The two are very different statements. Depends on your definition of god. So let's start with the easy option and say that I believe there is not, and can not be, any rational evidence of the bearded man in the sky. But I skipped ahead, and let's play with the definitions, and then of course, when we move away from the classical one, it gets more interesting. > The first interpretation would serve to close one's mind to anything that make shake that believe. It would lead one to avoid reading > the links I provided (to preserve that *atheistic* belief). If only you knew how many hours in my youth I spent arguing that hard-nosed atheism (with that I mean there can 100% never ever be a god under any circumstances) is also a position of belief. > The second interpretation would, on the other hand, encourage one to seek out such evidence and would lead one to read the links I > provided (to test your *agnostic* belief and see if any such evidence is out there). This I like! > God or gods (defined as beings of vastly greater capacity than us) fall out naturally in many theories: But here already I'm a believer! My computer and current AI:s have vastly greater capacity than me in some domains, so according to that defintion, sir, yes sir! > - Spatially infinite universes > - Mathematical Platonism > - Quantum Multiverse theories > - String theory landscapes > - Simulation Hypothesis Not a fan of the above. > - Technological Singularity Here there is much common ground and basis for discussion about definition of god. > You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can explain how it leads to beings that are superior to ourselves, and No, no, god as superior being, no quarrel there. I would not define it as god myself, but if that is the definition we're using, then yes, it follows from singularity that there will be gods. I'm very confident in that belief. > If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists by now. > > I doubt it. The evidence will be when you observe how this post will not convert any atheist on this list into a theist. If pressed, > they will pick a specific definition of God, like "an old man in the clouds who cares about our what people do in their bedrooms" and > thereby refute the existence of God. Guilty! But I also admitted that given your definition and the singularity scenario, you are right so don't judge me too harshly! ;) > >? ? ? ?I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually > >? ? ? ?express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable. > > > > That is quite possible. But one almost must be careful to avoid relying on agnosticism as a crutch and thereby close > off one's mind > > to the possibility such evidence could exist. > > Yes! I think this is incredibly important and I worry about exactly > that. However, my opinion of god is that the only way to know him is > through subjective, uncommunicable experience. Without that and without > faith, any proof will fail. With faith or with that deep experience, any > proof can serve to fortify your belief. > > What about the Gods that follow as implications of the theories I mention above? No subjective incommunicable experience is needed > there. The ethereal ones I'm not a fan of, but I definitely agree with you in the singularity theory, even though _personally_, that does not match my definition of god, which is the more classical version (if you press me, I think my favourite classical version is probably something unitarian or quakerist). > But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, and Karl > Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using religion as a > crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your experience. > Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to an object > and closing him off. > > Valid concerns. If you're interested I can send you a few short books. But be warned! Much of it is incomprehensible to me, but he does make some good points. > I like how you point out that agnosticism might be another crutch. I > will think more about that. > > :-) > > On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so if you > are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better avoid him. > > I don't think I've ever quite understood what essentialism is. Probably no one does. I guess there is a reason for the term incontinental philosophy. ;) > Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to articles that > say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know myself, > and you have probably found them yourself. > > That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting to explain quantum computer not relying on MW. I guess some suspend their judgement awaiting further evidence, and I am absolutely certain that there are many who are trying but we are not aware of them. Last night I heard of something called the zero-worlds theory! I have no idea if it makes sense, but it obviously was inspired by the MWI. > I am certain each interpretation has > their champion and I amcertain Deutsch happens to be a champion of MWI. > > I am not aware of any equivalently prominent living champions of CI. Penrose might fall into this category, but his theory is > something different from conventional CI, he proposes a quantum gravity effect that causes collapse. It is therefore a different > theory than existing/accepted QM. Fascinating! By I assume it never managed to make a big dent? Is it dead or dying? > People who subscribe to CI tend to be the people who don't really care about interpretational issues, and don't have a strong opinion > on it. Therefore you don't find the "champions of it" as you might find for those who subscribe to "non-standard" interpretations. True! And my proof is that I had a ph.d. in physics for dinner a few weeks ago who worked at CERN and now is working at a photonics startup. And to my great disappointment her answer to the qm + mwi question was "I don't really care". ;) > Likewise, what he thinks is obfuscatory nonsense, might have meaning, > just that he doesn't understand it. > > The thing is no one is even offering this "obfuscatory nonsense". There's simply silence. Or suspended judgment? ;) No, point taken. > so I, at least, > won't judge. I do still hold the opinion that there are many other > people who are equally arrogant and faithful to their own > interpretation. > > If you listen to Deutsch you will find he doesn't have an arrogant demeanor. For example: > https://youtu.be/Kj2lxDf9R3Y?si=4RPRMYLJ8wx3QK1I Yes, that was not nice of me. It was based on the text, but always better to meet in person (or at least listen and watch). > Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I hadn't seen before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been made when he > was still writing Fabric of Reality: > https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd Thank you very much! You do realize this will take time away from my current watching of Halo? And I do have to say I see similarities between Halo and The Expanse. > > David Deutsch says of?MW: "It is not in fact an ?interpretation? of quantum theory at all, any more than dinosaurs are > an > > ?interpretation? of the fossil record. It is simply what quantum mechanics is. ?The only astonishing thing is that > that?s still > > controversial,? Deutsch says. > > To me, it is not interesting what Deutsch says, it is more interesting > what Deutsch explains. If Deutsch is not able to explain it in a way > that makes the majority accept it, then that is a failing of Deutsch. > > I would start with fabric of reality, if you are interested in his explanation. Or if you are waiting for a majority to be converted > to MW, simply know that it might take another 50 or another 100 years. That's a long time to wait! I think I'll start with your youtube documentaries, and then take it from there. =) > If you want to know the answer now, you will need to me put some work in to understand the issues. But I think this could be done in > a few hours contemplating the question of where is the computation being performed when the 500 digit number is factored. > > Feel free to ask me any other questions related to this that might come to you. I will do my best to try to answer them. > > > > > > Also: "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as > a description > > of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger.? > > Cynicism and anger I do not like. Incomprehension on the other hand, I > can fully embrace. Again, if he cannot explain it in a way to make it > comprehensible it is on him. But anger and cynicism he does not deserve, > there I support him. > > > ?? > > > >? ? ? ?But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past each > >? ? ? ?other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =) > > > > Yes, some progress, I hope. :-) > > My biggest insight so far is how complex and ground breaking the subject > matter is, and how little I know. But I also think, looking at your > quotes, that there is a lot of emotions and ego involved when the giants > are debating this, and that is sad. > > I don't see the situation as the greats debating these ideas back and forth. I see it more as the momentum of millions of practicing > physicists raised under CI through their formative years in college, studiously shutting up and calculating, while a comparatively > small percentage bothered to ask deeper questions of what does this mean, (what is an observer, what is a measurement, how does wave Does makes one think about scientific indoctrination, and the paradigm shifts in philosophy of science! Momentum is building, and unexplainable phenomenons are increasing until the paradigm is smashed. Not a smooth, nor quick process. > > Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one day--when I'm old and crazy." > > The man has a great sense of humour! =) > > ?? Definitely. Hmm, maybe I should try to write him an email in swedish and ask him to join the mega-thread? I would not be surprised if he would. He seems like that kind of guy! He also has a brother who is a journalist in sweden and has an alternative media blog exploring conspiracy theories, so if that openness is genetic or inherent to the Tegmark upbringing, I can definitely see how Tegmark was drawn to MWI out of a need to explain. > >? ? ? ?Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very consistent! =) > > > > I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your agnosticism. > > Thank you Jason, and thank you for the great idea of the risk of being > too agnostic! > > You're welcome Daniel, thank you for making my evening so thought-filled! You're welcome! > >? ? ? ?Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) > > > > Humans had no answer to this generally, until rather recently. Agains, Russell Standish, and Markus Muller have worked > out a basis > > for Occam's Razor, from ensemble type theories. That is, they explain not only why the universe has something like a > Shrodinger > > equation behind it, but also why the simplest laws tend to be the right ones. > > Why do they say "tend" and not "always"? > > Good question. I think as is often the case, when we find something that seems like an unnecessary complication, it's not until much > later we realize: oh no actually that explains a great deal more, or that things if it weren't like that, life wouldn't be possible. Do you think occams razor here can be a crutch, and that it risks limiting us? Many people say "occam" and close the case. But continued digging, as you say, will perhaps revel that the added complications did have a purpose in the end. > So in the short term, theories may not always seem as simple as possible, but often this is temporary. For example, general > relativity is more complex than Newton's gravity, but general relativity also incorporated everything of special relativity too, so > in that sense it was still simplifying overall. > > Or consider the discovery of the neutrino. It seemed at first like a completely extraneous particle. But later we found it plays a > critical role in releasing elements out of collapsing stars. We wouldn't have oxygen or water if not for neutrinos. All the oxygen > would fall into a black hole and would be lost forever if not for these neutrinos. ?? Well, that's the beauty and fun of it all. It never ends! ;) QM is king today and dethroned tomorrow. At the moment, if I understand things correctly, there are no strong contenders really? Oh, that reminds me. That was one of the arguments in the realism vs anti-realism debate and whether the intangibles and unobservables have existence or not, that historically there were many unobservables that did exist, only to later be found to not exist. So having based decisions on unobservables historically, they would have been wrong. Well, just remembered, and we covered that to a certain extent above when I wrote about the value of theories. > >? ? ? ?> physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave. > > > >? ? ? ?But we can never know what anything "is" except our own consciousness. I > >? ? ? ?think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a > >? ? ? ?material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world. > > > > A platonic world can be shown to explain the appearance of a material world. It is thus a simpler theory than material > world?+ > > platonic world, it is simply: platonic world. > > Or simply the material world? Or simply nothing at all? The null set? > > The platonic world of mathematical truths would exist whether or not the physical world existed. It is necessary and self-existent. > The same can't be said for the material world. True. The material world exists are far as we can perceive. It also has been a very successful strategy historically, to act as if a material world exists with real consequences, but at the end of the day, there is always the extreme doubt. I think it is better to say that we do not yet know the ultimate foundations, and to admit that everything, including ones own experience and mind, can be doubted, than to postulate an ideal world, or worlds beyond our comprehension. I think I'm fairly happy to postulate a material world based on simply pragmatic grounds. > >? ? ? ?As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the > >? ? ? ?interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll > >? ? ? ?insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known and > >? ? ? ?when he or they can be used to make testable predictions. > > > > But isn't this inconsistent with your strong bet on materialism? What proof do you have that lets you ascribe a near > certainty to > > materialism, but deny the same could be done for MW? > > The fact that it hurts when I get punched in the face, at the same time, > it does not hurt when someone in the other world tries to punch me in > the face. > > Someone might have argued against Galileo, using this same reasoning, and conclude the earth doesn't move, because they can't feel it > move (even though Galileo's theory explains why we won't feel it move). But the advantage there was the testability of his hypothesis. No, it would not be tested for many hundreds of years, but at the end of the day it was something that predicted something about our physical universe. Just like the punch in the face, vs, the lack of reaction when a virtual being tries to virtually punch me in the face. > >? ? ? ?Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and > >? ? ? ?eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain > >? ? ? ?interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually > >? ? ? ?computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the > >? ? ? ?human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols. > > > > Do you believe that the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is either '0' or '1'? Or would you say it is a meaningless > question because no > > one in this universe could ever determine which it was? > > Well, to be honest, yes, outside the scope of this discussion I do > consider the question meaningless. ;) > > Do you think there is an answer? > For example would you say that exactly one of the following two sentences is true: > A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0 > B)?the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1 > > I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even if we can't know which one is true. Yes, but this is not a state of the world or a scientific theory, so I'd argue that this does not apply to our discussion of whether MWI can ever be proven or not. Add to that, that we also don't know the answer, so as far as we are concerned it is undefined. > If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty meaningless > question. > > > What then, if I told you, there was some other larger universe, where people there had computed it, and determined > which it was. > > Would that mean they have different mathematical truths there, than we have here? > > I think that question is meaningless if there is no bi-directional flow > of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, as > fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless. > > When would you say that 17 became prime? > A) it's always been prime > B) After the big bang > C) When 17-year cicadas evolved > D) When man invented numbers > E) When man first counted to 17 > F) When humans defined prime numbers > G) When the first person proved 17 was prime > H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime > I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 is prime? I'd say H and I. Remove all counsciousness and the concept no longer has any existence. > > I have heard people argue for ultrafinitism before, but I think it leads to inconsistencies. Most things we have proven > in > > mathematics would be false, if there were not infinite numbers. > > For example, the proof that there are infinite primes would be false, under ultrafinitism. If Pi's digits do not go on > forever, then > > e^(2Pi*i) would not equal 1, but some other number. If it is not 1, then all of mathematics breaks down due to the > principle of > > explosion (see:?https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#The_Foundational_Crisis ) > > I don't see how that would follow from my position. > > Mathematical truths must be constant and observer independent. If they change over time, based on what we have done, e.g., if there > were 174626847 factors of zero yesterday and 174626848 today, then you could prove two mutually inconsistent things which leads to > the principle of explosion. Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has meaning when being interpreted by human consciousness. Since math tries to describe aspects of nature in human form, it will follow that every time we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool, the constants will hold. > They only exist when we interpret > them. > > This seems like idealism, only applied to? mathematical objects. If all the mathematicians go to sleep at the same time, does the > ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter stop being 3.14259... ? In terms of human language and meaning yes. Those are only ideas in the mind. Of course you can write down the ideas and how to use the language. But the concepts are only meaningful to you, when thought about. In terms of aspects in the world, that math tries to describe, no, those aspects still hold, assuming an external world of some kind. > This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have happened > unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;) > > I feel we are writing a book together. ?? Oh yes! What should we call it? ;) Maybe it's time to sit down together for a month or two and harvest the thread into a book? ;) Best regards, Daniel > > Best, > > Jason? > > > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jason > > ? > >? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?Daniel > > > > > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Hello Stuart, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Just a quick question from someone not very > knowledgeable of > >? ? ? ?cutting > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? edge physics. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? You say that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? that a copy of you can truly be you, then you > can relax > >? ? ? ?because > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?you are > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?already > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?immortal. You > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?don't need to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? copy yourself because there are already plenty > of, if > >? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?infinite > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?numbers of, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?you > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?strewn about > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? multiverse. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and > multiverses > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?supported by > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?proof or > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?is itone > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of many > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?interpretations of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? current theories? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the > sense that > >? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?probability > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?there's > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?only > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?one > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?universe > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(with one kind of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?This is as close to proof as anything science can provide. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Best regards, Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Stuart LaForge > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This is a crucial point, for those of us > >? ? ? ?interested in > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?uploading, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?so I > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?think we > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?should > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?really > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? understand it, yet it makes no sense to > me. Would > >? ? ? ?you > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?please > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?explain > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?further? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Could you also please explain the comment > about > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?continuity and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not-discontinuity > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?being > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same thing? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ben > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 21 09:55:52 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:55:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: <008201d9ec10$8f49a360$addcea20$@rainier66.com> References: <4facfe35-0b67-75bd-d933-1f7ccf479ba9@swisscows.email> <008201d9ec10$8f49a360$addcea20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <53e05d9c-333a-5e07-e5ba-85fb79827c12@swisscows.email> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > And what about the reverse? Have we adapted to love small fluffy things? Is it natures way, to protect the children of animals, to make them small and fluffy? > > Best regards, > Daniel > > Entirely plausible Daniel. Human evolution was likely influenced by our domestic beasts. We came to rely on guard dogs, we used horses for transportation, mules and oxen for pulling plows, cattle for food, sheep for clothing and food. No doubt all of these influenced the way humanity developed. Fascinating to contemplate this bi-directional influence! Makes you wonder if dogs + us will ever uplift thenselves? On a subjective level, I certainly had moments with sheep dogs where they seemed very, very uplifted although they were of course not expressing themselves with words, but with sound and gestures. Best regards, Daniel > > spike > > > > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Amazing stuff, ja? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs >> descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause >> Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. If they are right, it explains a >> lotta lotta. >> >> >> >> For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us. I >> have seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from >> his peoples. Could he be a wolf with WBS? I have met a human with >> that syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality >> traits. >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: spike at rainier66.com >> Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM >> To: 'ExI chat list' >> Cc: spike at rainier66.com >> Subject: nova on dogs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.) I now >> get it on internet. >> >> >> >> The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park. It answers >> some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: >> do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because >> evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them >> to love us? >> >> >> >> spike >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 21 09:57:47 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:57:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] nova on dogs In-Reply-To: References: <4facfe35-0b67-75bd-d933-1f7ccf479ba9@swisscows.email> <008201d9ec10$8f49a360$addcea20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: > Mammals instinctively feel protective towards other mammals whose eyes are large for their head and whose heads are large for their > bodies. It inhibits otherwise infanticidal males from killing the newborn young of females they want to mate with. > The interesting question is why this works in humans despite the huge difference in "fuzziness" between human babies and literally > other mammal species. What about lions? Don't the males kill the offspring of their male predecessors? > Would human babies be cuter if they had a soft, downy coat that they gradually lost over their first year? Yes! I do not actually find these wrinkly small human beings cute. Fascinating yes! But not cute. Don't tell my wife though! ;) Best regards, Daniel > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 4:21?PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of efc--- via extropy-chat > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 3:03 PM > To: spike jones via extropy-chat > Cc: efc at swisscows.email > Subject: Re: [ExI] nova on dogs > > And what about the reverse? Have we adapted to love small fluffy things? Is it natures way, to protect the children of > animals, to make them small and fluffy? > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > Entirely plausible Daniel.? Human evolution was likely influenced by our domestic beasts.? We came to rely on guard dogs, > we used horses for transportation, mules and oxen for pulling plows, cattle for food, sheep for clothing and food.? No > doubt all of these influenced the way humanity developed. > > spike > > > > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > > Amazing stuff, ja?? That Nova on dogs proposes the theory that dogs > > descend from wolves who have the same sequence of genes that cause > > Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans.? If they are right, it explains a > > lotta lotta. > > > >? > > > > For so long I wondered if dogs love us for food, or just love us.? I > > have seen my own dog leave his own treat to come for some lovin from > > his peoples.? Could he be a wolf with WBS?? I have met a human with > > that syndrome, and I do see the similarities with a dog?s personality > > traits. > > > >? > > > > spike > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > > From: spike at rainier66.com > > Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2023 7:52 AM > > To: 'ExI chat list' > > Cc: spike at rainier66.com > > Subject: nova on dogs > > > >? > > > >? > > > >? > > > > I have been a fan of Nova for most of my life (the TV series.)? I now > > get it on internet. > > > >? > > > > The episode on dog domestication whacks it outta the park.? It answers > > some questions I have wondered about for some time, such as: > > do dogs love us because we feed them, or do they love us because > > evolutionary psychology somehow created the brain circuitry for them > > to love us? > > > >? > > > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 18:33:55 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] History Message-ID: There is an article from someone who has looked into the history of this list. https://www.maximumprogress.org/extropia-archaeology " A group of a few dozen prolific posters are the seeds of the online intellectual communities around AI, existential risk, accelerationism, effective altruism, rationalism, libertarianism, and cryptocurrency. " Whether you have heard of the Extropians or not, they have influenced you." It's an amusing read. It will be very interesting to see where things go in the next couple of years as AI matures and (possibly) we see alien megastructures that were anticipated by the Extropians of yore. Keith From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 19:00:41 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 15:00:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By its own definitions IIT is not falsifiable, for it proclaims that a computer program that gave identical behavior in all situations to another conscious system, would not be conscious. But since it has identical behavior there is no objective way to prove this assertion of IIT (that one system is conscious while the other is not). This also implies the possibility of philosophical zombies (which IIT proponents freely admit), which also implies consciousness is epiphenomenonal, with all the problems of philosophical zombies and epiphenomenonalism entail. So is it pseudoscience? I don't know if I would call it that, but I think it is almost certainly wrong as it is currently framed. I do find some strengths in some of the ideas that have come out of it, in particular how a system must be capable of affecting itself for it to be aware of its consciousness. I also think it is right to put the focus on information. I think where it errs is in confusing a logical-informational state with a instantaneous physical state. This leads to the mistaken belief that a parallel computation is more conscious than a serial computation, even when they compute the exact same function (IIT proponents don't consider space-time symmetry). I think that if IIT corrected these problems, it would be no more than functionalism. I think of IIT is a kind of "functionalism in denial", as it makes many similar claims to functionalists, placing emphasis on the causal organization of a system, but at the last moment, it insists that a computer implementing that same causal organization would not be conscious. Jason On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 2:08 PM John Clark wrote: > Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience" > > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > > jqq > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3KhiA9tJXvhos5RRSStwh6hSWm6SFVfz-vpRZDrYGM%2BA%40mail.gmail.com > > . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 21 20:32:30 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 22:32:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98f62c94-b4d8-7280-e6ab-9f8dd13bae89@swisscows.email> Fascinating! Would be fun to read about how it developed since then. Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > There is an article from someone who has looked into the history of this list. > > https://www.maximumprogress.org/extropia-archaeology > > " A group of a few dozen prolific posters are the seeds of the online > intellectual communities around AI, existential risk, accelerationism, > effective altruism, rationalism, libertarianism, and cryptocurrency. > > " Whether you have heard of the Extropians or not, they have influenced you." > > It's an amusing read. > > It will be very interesting to see where things go in the next couple > of years as AI matures and (possibly) we see alien megastructures that > were anticipated by the Extropians of yore. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 22:40:11 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 18:40:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <5017a5b4-81f1-588e-ee0a-d0087c53e86c@swisscows.email> <1fd9aa50-9f87-42a5-dd7d-2ab8e634bc2c@swisscows.email> <81c8b5ce-1b1f-899f-408f-f3d4a775f37c@swisscows.email> Message-ID: (Resending since we exceeded the 160 KB limit, I deleted a bunch of context from prior conversations with the hope this goes through.) Jason On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 12:45 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:55?AM efc--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Good evening Jason, >> >> Wife is sleeping, so now I can pursue my guilty pleasures such as >> continuing the mega-thread! ;) >> > > ?? > > >> >> On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> Yes, I think that is reasonable, especially when high lighted with >> extremely silly examples. When asked about the interiors of black holes, >> I would say that it is more probable that Einstein is right, than that >> inside every black hole there sits a chaos monkey causing chaos. >> Regardless of where you are on the realism anti-realism scale, I would >> think that most, if not all, would rule out the chaos monkey. >> > > Then I don't think our positions are too far off. I don't ask for any > belief or acceptance of some idea as some final truth. Rather, I see all > ideas as having some probability/confidence we might ascribe to them. And > even in such cases when an idea happens to be true we can never know it is > true. > > >> >> >> I would probably say postulate, or something similar. Prediction to me, >> needs to be verified. Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I >> probably get the nuances wrong. >> > > To postulate is more associated with making an assumption. > > I think a nice way to think about theories (especially if one comes from a > computing background) is to think of them as functions. > A prediction then, is equivalent to evaluating a function for some > situation x: y = F(x). > Then "y", the output of the function, is what we might call that > function's "prediction". > The only thing we have assumed (or postulated) here is the validity of F() > for the situation x. > > Now imagine a situation where mathematicians only used Wolfram Alpha to > plot functions, and for some reason, Wolfram Alpha could never plot graphs > outside of the range [-10, 10]. Mathematicians could theorize about the > validity of functions outside this range, and what those plots might look > like, but they could never use Wolfram Alpha (their only window for seeing > these functions) to actually see what they look like there. This is how I > feel about using theories in physics which predict things beyond our > present confines of this point in time, and this point in space, in this > branch of the wave function, in this big bang bubble, in this set of string > theory configuration, etc. That our window is limited, has no direct > bearing on whether or not these functions (or theories) are valid in ranges > outside the window we can see. > > I think our position is a bit like a fish trapped in a pond. We should be > careful not to mistake what we can see, for all that can be. > > Consider the plight of a brilliant fish scientist confined to a small > pond. This fish scientist observes rocks fall, and bubbles rise, he also > makes precise measurements of the surface of the water on the pond and > finds it to be curved ever so slightly, as if it is a partial surface of a > sphere. The brilliant fish scientist then develops a theory of gravity, > based on the idea that everything is pulled towards some unseen center. The > fish scientist drops two rocks on opposite sides of the pond, and finds > their paths are not completely parallel, a further confirmation of this > theory that everything is pulled towards a center. Furthermore, the > difference in angle aligns with the curvature of the pond's surface, adding > further credence to his theory (the direction rocks fall is always 90 > degrees from the angle of the pond's surface at the point the rock is > dropped from). > The brilliant fish scientist then makes a bold prediction: he infers that > reality must be much larger than the small pond he is confined to: the > curvature of the pond's surface suggests he lives on a sphere with a > diameter of 40,000 kilometers. The fellow fish, however, think he is a bit > silly for making such a prediction. Though the fellow fish accept his > theory of gravity and the measurements of the pond surface's curvature, > they think it is unwarranted to discuss anything that neither he nor they > could ever confirm. The fish scientist argues, if his theory is true, it > explains everything: why rocks dropped from different points don't fall in > a parallel direction, why the pond's surface is not completely flat, but > curved, and why rocks fall and bubbles rise. Yes, it implies the existence > of things we can't directly see, but such unseen things are necessary for > his theory to work at all (things would fall over, or collapse inward > , if there wasn't already > something underneath us and to the side of us). > > I think this is where we are. Our best theories necessarily include things > beyond our capacity to see, because they are so powerful. Note that general > relativity makes an analogous prediction regarding the curvature of space > itself. We have used satellites to measure the curvature of space, and > found its curvature to be less than 0.4%. This implies (assuming general > relativity) that space must go on at least 250X further than what we can > see in every direction. So that the volume of the space we can see is no > more than 1 / 250^3 (or 1/17,576,000th) of what is out there. What do you > say about the reality of all this other space? It is implied by our theory > (and by our measurement of the curvature of space). But we will never be > able to travel out beyond our present confines to see this other space. It > is over the cosmological horizon > . We are, like those > fish, trapped in our own local backwater. Even if a fish jumps out of the > pond to try to see a little further, it still can't see beyond the horizon. > > > >> >> >> > >> > It seems we have two choices: >> > 1. Reject these theories (for predicting things we cannot see or test). >> > 2. Accept these theories (along with their implication that reality is >> bigger than what we can see from our present vantage point) >> >> Or 3, remain agnostic > > > Can a true agnostic (who neither accepts or rejects any theory) even do > physics? If you give a theory-agnostic physicist a physics problem to > solve, how does he or she decide which theory to use to make a prediction? > If the theory-agnostic physicist chooses a particular theory to use to > make a prediction, is that not a form of acceptance of the theory? It seems > to me the true agnostic must refuse to take any action or make any > prediction. > > >> or 4, letting the equations do the talking without >> human interpretations. > > > I don't think that's realistic. You can confine yourself entirely to the > equations, but you still get numerical answers that tell you reality is > bigger than what we see. > For example regarding the mathematics of cosmic inflation. You could ask > at what time period t, does the math predict that inflation stops? > The equations would provide you a strictly mathematical answer: never > You could also ask for a numerical prediction for the number of big bangs > that inflation will produce once inflation is initiated. And again you get > a numerical answer: infinite. > > It's not that scientists woke up one day and wanted to find many > universes, it's that so many of our best theories directly imply them, from > a simple reading of the math. A simple reading of relativity (plus a > measurement of the curvature of space) implies space is at least tens of > millions of times greater than all of the trillions upon trillions of cubic > light years we can see. Our best theory for explaining the big bang > suggests the process that generated it continues forever, perpetually > causing new big bangs for all time. The math of QM necessitates the > introduction of parallel histories, which interact with ours to cause > interference effects which we see in everyday experiments. These extra > histories are there, in the equations (you can't apply the equations > without including them). > > > >> I would like to draw a line between what, within >> a theory, we can test and prove/disprove, and beyond that line, we >> statements of the theory we cannot currently (or never) test or prove. I >> think the tools and concepts on each side of this line, should be >> treated differently. I do not, however, think that we should stop >> theorizing. I think the utility of these extrapolations is in >> inspiration and motivation, that makes us push further. I agree that too >> much or too strict agnosticism could lead to us stopping to expand the >> horizons. So I agree with some, but I would still like to uphold a >> difference of the content of theories between provable and >> extrapolation, but both have their value and their use. >> > > There are three categories of predictions: > https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg > 1. Tested > 2. Testable but not yet tested > 3. Not testable > #1 of course deserves our greatest credence, but I see no reason to > distinguish credence between #2 and #3. > > > >> >> > I don't think we should reject these theories on account of them >> implying reality is bigger than what we can see. Why should we >> > suppose we should be in a position to survey all of reality? >> >> I agree. Even the most outrageous theory can still serve as a mental >> tool that manages to create new knowledge and new technology. >> > > ?? > > >> >> > and as the nr of books and links is increasing >> > that I would have to go through, to provide you with good >> answers, I >> > find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. And >> that is >> > not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) >> Ok, they >> > might be better than the math and physics skills of the average >> person, >> > but not anywhere close to the skills of this list. >> > >> > I think you may be selling yourself short. We all begin somewhere. I >> did not major in math or physics, I've just tried to read a lot >> > as science as a subject has always interested me. Much of what I have >> learned has come from discussions with others on lists like >> > this one. >> >> Thank you. I just feel frustrated when the content outpaces my available >> time. But I'll try to hang in there for a while yet. ;) >> > > ?? > > >> >> > I also don't think any special math or science background is required >> to understand most of the arguments used for different QM >> > interpretations. >> >> Ah, but this goes into the language idea I had, that when we humanize >> the equations, this could lead to errors and wrong ideas. But as I said >> in the other thread, what else can we do? At most, hope for some kind of >> Arrival language, that changes the structure of the brain to enable us >> to look beyond. ;) >> > > Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban ? > > >> >> > So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I >> would not >> > be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything you >> are >> > saying. >> > >> > I would be happy to answer any questions, privately or on the list, you >> might have if anything I say requires additional explanation. >> >> Thank Jason, I'll keep that in mind. >> >> >> > >> >> That's a shame! I assume it would make it harder to find different >> angles and explanations. >> > > I think there are so many different subfields and specialties that > everything is quite fragmented and compartmentalized, such that even if one > did discover a great unifying theory today, there's a good chance it would > be completely glossed over because no one else has the right combination of > specialties to understand it, assuming that they even heard about it and > read it. Consider that there are over 10,000 scientific publications every > day. How many can any person read in a day? > > >> >> >> That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A whole >> life!! >> > > Yes, he continued working well into his 80s. There's a great book which > covers much of Wheeler's life, called Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn. > > "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling, > that when?in a decade, a century, or a millennium?we grasp it, we will all > say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been > so stupid for so long?" > -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?How Come the Quantum? > ? > (1986) > > "I have never been able to let go of questions like: How come existence? > How come the quantum?" > -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam > ? > (1998) > > Note Wheeler was 87 in 1998. > > >> >> >> > with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is >> quantum mechanical. >> >> But it is just an assumption? > > > All theories are assumed. > > >> And can the assumption ever be proven? > > > Theories are never proven, at best they persist in states of being "not > yet refuted". But our confidence in theories increases as they survive more > and more tests which have the capacity to refute them. > > >> It >> sounds as it by definition, touches things completely outside our >> reality, and then it seems to me that they will be forever assumptions. >> > > Such theories touch on things outside our reality, but they also touch on > things inside our reality. For instance, they make predictions about things > we can observe and test (e.g. predictions about the nature of reality or > properties of physical laws). It is for this reason that they are > falsifiable (there are tests they can undergo which have the capacity to > refute them), and having passed such tests, we can have a non-zero > confidence in them. > > >> After all, many people "assume" a god or a creator (however you want to >> define it) but no matter the assumption, it is not the same as hard >> empirical proof. >> > > Empirical evidence concerns what is observable. I would agree, that if for > example, there was a theory that made no observable predictions whatsoever, > it would not be a scientific theory and would not be worthy of our time to > discuss. But this is not the case concerning any of these theories (QM, GR, > Inflation, etc.) They all make predictions we can, and have, tested > empirically. > > >> >> >> Is that the only way to derive the equation? Or are there others? >> > > I am not aware of others. It also seems that Wheeler was never aware of > any, at least at the time he was still asking: How come the Quantum? And > Wheeler was probably the best connected physicist or recent memory. > > > >> >> > them. If we are confident in a theory, why can't we be confident in the >> untested predictions of that theory? >> >> Because it depends on if those untested claims can be tested or not. >> > > Can you explain this part more fully, I don't understand. In both cases, > we exist in a time when it hasn't yet been tested. What then makes us more > confident in the prediction? I don't see why the fact that we could test it > is of any relevance in the time before we test it. > > > Yes, we can have varying degrees of belief in them, but we can not claim >> that we have direct knowledge, and for me, that is an important >> difference that keeps us from letting out speculations lose touch with >> reality. Keeping in mind the distinction between knowledge and degree of >> belief I think is good to keep us grounded. That being said however, >> theories are important mental tools for the reasons I outlined above. >> >> > >> >> I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM equations, >> and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory. > > > In that sense it could be called an interpretation (as it adds nothing new > to the theory that isn't already there). > > In the sense that I say it is not an interpretation, I do so in a > different sense, because it is just an acceptance that the underlying > equations are true. To me, calling it an interpretation is then a bit > misleading, as we wouldn't call belief that "F = ma" an interpretation of > momentum. > > > It is also listed >> under interpretations, and to me, it seems like an interpretation among >> many that theorize and try to explain how the qm equations work. >> > > The existence of many histories is predicted by the equations (it's not > the starting assumption). The parallel histories exist all the same in CI. > CI just adds the assumption that all but one suddenly disappear when an > observer looks at the system. Of course, this means that before any > observers were born in this universe, both CI and MW agree on the existence > of many parallel histories. > > > >> > >> >> Well, here I agree based on how I understand CI vs MWI. If I understand >> you correctly CI needs some adjustment of the equation right, which MWI >> does not need? Please correct me here. So CI according to what I said >> (or read) above, would perhaps move closer to becoming an additional >> theory since it modifies or adjusts the equation? I'm on deep water >> here, so take it with a grain of salt. >> > > You're correct. CI needs to describe measurement. That is, what qualifies > as a measurement, and why does it lead to a deviation from Schrodinger's > equation (as happens under it's hypothesized "collapse of the wave > function"). If fleshed out, this would be a different theory from QM > without collapse. But as it is, even proponents of CI disagree about when > collapse happens. It used to be thought any measurement would do it, but > the the quantum eraser experiment shows can't be our measurement that does > it, so perhaps our knowledge (or our consciousness) of the result triggers > it. In saying our consciousness causes collapse, it has tied our progress > in the measurement problem to the question of what consciousness is. And > this is why the only known experimental test to disprove collapse as > objectively real requires a conscious observer whom we are able to quantum > erase their memory. > > > >> >> > perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would be. >> If advocates of CI did propose alternate mathematical >> >> Give them time! ;) >> > > They've had 100 years. ?? > > >> >> >> Refuses to make such specifications... yet. ;) Another justification for >> my agnosticism is that we've not reached the finish line and many things >> and geniuses could come and go. Sadly, as you said in the example of >> heliocentrism, it can take 100s of years. =( >> > > But the thing is, ever since Everett we have had a solution to the > measurement problem. He showed why we would have the appearance of wave > function collapse even if the wave function never collapsed. Ever since > they time, I think it's become a mind of fools errand to try to explain it > as a real phenomenon (when we can show how without assuming it, we can > explain it's appearance). > The situation is a bit like trying to find some new unseen force that kept > the moon in the sky, well after Newton's theory of gravity and inertia > provided us a perfect explanation for what keeps it there. > > > >> >> > Can we not reach agreement that relativity implies that other points in >> time exist, even though we can never travel to these other >> > times to confirm their existence? >> >> Since we live "in time" I find that proposition easier to swallow, than >> universes completely beyond this one. So my degree of belief is higher >> in points in time, partly supported by my human experience. >> > > I think there the right framing, in terms of different degrees of > confidence. > > For instance, I might be 99% confident in the existence of past and future > points in time, but 95% confident in the many histories of QM. > > > >> >> > with the ability of quantum computers to factor RSA keys. All you need >> consider is Deutsch's question: when a quantum computer >> > factors a number that requires the evaluation of 10^500 unique states, >> where is that computation being performed (when our universe >> > has just 10^80 atoms)? The right answer comes out, but where did it >> come from? How was it computed? >> >> But, based on Bills input, I don't see it as conclusive evidence of MWI. >> I see it as a frontier that is not yet understood. > > > It is completely understood from the equations of QM (which imply the > reality of many parallel histories of the quantum computer realizes). > > You only get the handwaving "we don't know" from the interpretations that > deny the reality of these parallel states. But in denying the reality of > the intermediate parallel states it becomes impossible to explain the > correct answer existing in final state. > > To seal the deal, ask what happens when we run a brain simulation on a > quantum computer, initialized so it perceives many different inputs. Does > this not realize many parallel conscious states? > > > Among the many ways it >> could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it >> could work. >> > > Look at the explanations the AI gave under different assumed > interpretations. Did you find the explanation assuming CI satisfactory? > > > >> >> > >> > I think you may be overly optimistic about how quickly these things >> happen. It took 100 years for people to accept Copernicus's idea >> > after his book was published. People do not expand their ontologies >> readily. >> >> Most likely true. It takes time. At the end of the day, we're only human >> (at the moment). >> . >> > >> > I am interested to see these if you can provide links. >> >> Here is one example: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments > > > I don't think anything there is specific to Bohm's interpretation. I see > Bohm's interpretation as entirely philosophical. It admits the existence of > all the parallel histories, it just says that only one of them is "really > real" and that the unfortunate souls in the branches that aren't really > real are not really conscious. > > > >> >> "An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the potential >> validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil droplets. >> In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a vibrating >> fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves produced >> by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical behavior with >> remarkable accuracy". >> > > The question to ask is whether Bohm's theory predicts anything different > we could observe about the electron compared to conventional QM. I would be > greatly surprised to learn that it does. > > > >> >> > >> > Yes this is a big problem. There's so many specialized disciplines an >> not enough time to become proficient in more than a m small few >> > of them. >> > >> > Perhaps the best bet for people on our position is to read books by >> physicists for popular audiences. Read two books by two prominent >> > representatives from opposing sides of an issue, and weigh the >> strengths of their arguments. >> >> Yes, I think that is a good start. But the time restriction still >> stands, so we have to choose our topics carefully. ;) >> >> It reminds me of the book the improvement of the mind by Isac Watts and >> to some extent How to think by Henry Hazlitt. >> >> I find it so wonderful how they thought that man should pick an area of >> science and study it for its own pleasure and thereby improve his mind. >> Then engage in thoughtful debate and conversation to make sure the best >> ideas survive. >> >> I then look at public discourse today and I think that both men would >> rotate in their graves. ;) >> > > True. > > > >> > >> > >> > Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" book. I >> might recommend that if you want to see his best attempt at >> > explaining it. >> >> Thank you Jason, I've added it to my book list. >> > > ?? > > >> and I'll take it from there. >> > >> > Sorry I was unclear. I did not mean to compare all five, but rather to >> ask to compare (math, logic, reason, and philosophy) vs. >> > language games. >> >> Ahh, got it! Well, to start with I'd change the grouping to (reason), >> (math, logic), (philosophy), (language games). >> >> Reason underlying all activities. Math and logic being important tools >> in science and philosophy. >> >> Language games (depending on how you define language) can then be played >> outside of any of the activities such as in theological debate, within >> the limits of a social game, but also within the setting of science, >> religion and within philosophy. >> >> > Most nominalists say, for example, that math is only a language game. >> So I was curious if this was the basis for saying the same of >> > other fields, such as theology. >> >> No, I think it was the theology that triggered me here, since I don't >> play that game according to the rules of theologists, which makes those >> discussions fairly meaningless to me, unless we beforehand go through >> "the rules". >> > > A rational theologian, could use logic and reason in their analysis > though, could they not? > > > >> >> > There are an infinite number of possible conceptions of God. So I do >> not know what you mean when you say you do not believe in God. >> >> Sorry my bad! Again theology is what spooked me, and I was referring to >> the bearded man in the sky. >> > > I assumed so. ?? > > >> > Many religions define God as the cause of existence. If you believe >> this universe has a cause then you believe in the God of these >> > religions. >> >> Yes, of course. If we start to hack away at god and modify the concept, >> I am certain you can make me a believer depending on the definition. =) >> > > Then we are doing theology, hopefully not the kind that scares you. ?? > > > >> > Sikhs, among other religions, define God as truth. If you believe in >> Truth, then you believe in the god of the Sikhs. >> ... (good examples)... >> > And so on... >> > >> > So the statement that one doesn't believe in God is rather empty, >> absent further specification. >> >> Agreed! >> > > ?? > > >> >> > Science and rationality can be applied far more broadly than most are >> aware. It can penetrate questions and topics usually assumed to >> > belong forever to the sphere of religion, such as questions like: why >> we exist, why we are here, the meaning of life, and what >> > happens after we die, do we have free will, etc. >> >> Well, here I am not in agreement with you. I did read your blog entry on >> the meaning of life for instance, and I do like the way you structured >> it, but I do not buy your conclusion. But that might perhaps be another >> mega-thread? =) >> > > I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of > departure between our views with regards to this subject. > > > >> > It's not that theology is important to me, what's important is that >> science not shy away from any subject, including theology. Doing >> > so would be a disservice to both science and religion. >> >> Again, I think here I do not agree. Science can of course investigate >> the phenomenon of religion from a social and psychological point of >> view, but it can never explain it. > > > What makes you so certain? > > > Traditional religion as exprienced >> phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science. >> > > Religion rooted in personal experience is often distinguished with the > term "mysticism." Science, concerned with the objective then, would have > great difficulty handling mysticism, which is based on subjective > experience. > > This is one of the main difficulties science has with studying > consciousness (which is entirely subjective). But I feel you would not say > that consciousness is entirely outside the scope of science, on account of > consciousness being a subjective phenomenon. > > > >> >> > I think there is no rational evidence of god. >> > >> > You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of any? The >> two are very different statements. >> >> Depends on your definition of god. So let's start with the easy option >> and say that I believe there is not, and can not be, any rational >> evidence of the bearded man in the sky. >> >> But I skipped ahead, and let's play with the definitions, and then of >> course, when we move away from the classical one, it gets more >> interesting. >> > > Yes, I agree. > > >> > The first interpretation would serve to close one's mind to anything >> that make shake that believe. It would lead one to avoid reading >> > the links I provided (to preserve that *atheistic* belief). >> >> If only you knew how many hours in my youth I spent arguing that >> hard-nosed atheism (with that I mean there can 100% never ever be a god >> under any circumstances) is also a position of belief. >> > > Indeed. ?? > > >> > The second interpretation would, on the other hand, encourage one to >> seek out such evidence and would lead one to read the links I >> > provided (to test your *agnostic* belief and see if any such evidence >> is out there). >> >> This I like! >> >> > God or gods (defined as beings of vastly greater capacity than us) fall >> out naturally in many theories: >> >> But here already I'm a believer! My computer and current AI:s have >> vastly greater capacity than me in some domains, so according to that >> defintion, sir, yes sir! >> >> > - Spatially infinite universes >> > - Mathematical Platonism >> > - Quantum Multiverse theories >> > - String theory landscapes >> > - Simulation Hypothesis >> >> Not a fan of the above. >> >> > - Technological Singularity >> >> Here there is much common ground and basis for discussion about >> definition of god. >> > > "Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater > knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and > greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic > tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without > limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty, > infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the > accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as > it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So > evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never > quite reaching this ideal." > -- Ray Kurzweil in ?The Singularity is Near? (2005) > >> >> > You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can >> explain how it leads to beings that are superior to ourselves, and >> >> No, no, god as superior being, no quarrel there. I would not define it >> as god myself, but if that is the definition we're using, then yes, it >> follows from singularity that there will be gods. I'm very confident in >> that belief. >> > > ?? > > >> > If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists >> by now. >> > >> > I doubt it. The evidence will be when you observe how this post will >> not convert any atheist on this list into a theist. If pressed, >> > they will pick a specific definition of God, like "an old man in the >> clouds who cares about our what people do in their bedrooms" and >> > thereby refute the existence of God. >> >> Guilty! > > > ?? > > But I also admitted that given your definition and the >> singularity scenario, you are right so don't judge me too harshly! ;) >> > > I don't! Unlike many others, you were open to considering other > definitions and changing your beliefs according based on the different > definitions. The atheists on the other hand, tend to never accept other > definitions besides the one god they chose to not believe in. > > >> >> > What about the Gods that follow as implications of the theories I >> mention above? No subjective incommunicable experience is needed >> > there. >> >> The ethereal ones I'm not a fan of, but I definitely agree with you in >> the singularity theory, even though _personally_, that does not match my >> definition of god, which is the more classical version (if you press me, >> I think my favourite classical version is probably something unitarian or >> quakerist). >> > > ?? > > > >> > But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, and >> Karl >> > Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using religion >> as a >> > crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your experience. >> > Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to an >> object >> > and closing him off. >> > >> > Valid concerns. >> >> If you're interested I can send you a few short books. But be warned! >> Much of it is incomprehensible to me, but he does make some good points. >> > > I am curious but also pressed for time, so I don't know when I would have > time to read them. I will take a look though. > > > >> >> > On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so >> if you >> > are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better >> avoid him. >> > >> > I don't think I've ever quite understood what essentialism is. >> >> Probably no one does. I guess there is a reason for the term >> incontinental philosophy. ;) >> > > > That's a good one! ?? > > >> > Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to articles >> that >> > say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know >> myself, >> > and you have probably found them yourself. >> > >> > That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting to >> explain quantum computer not relying on MW. >> >> I guess some suspend their judgement awaiting further evidence, and I am >> absolutely certain that there are many who are trying but we are not >> aware of them. Last night I heard of something called the zero-worlds >> theory! I have no idea if it makes sense, but it obviously was inspired >> by the MWI. >> > > It is explained well in this talk: > https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=PFH_UFGrvKYGQnDk > > I am quite partial to the "zero universe interpretation", it highlights > the fact that what we call universes are emergent and not quite real in the > sense our intuition suggests. It is quite similar to the "many-minds > interpretation". All the these theories accept a plethora of stuff, where > they differ is in what they consider as the truly fundamental unit of this > reality. Many-worlds would say it's the material, whereas zero > universe/many-minds would say it's the observer-state (i.e. consciousness). > > I think this view, that consciousness is more fundamental is closer to the > truth. It is not that "worlds split" but rather that "consciousness > differentiates." > > >> >> > something different from conventional CI, he proposes a quantum gravity >> effect that causes collapse. It is therefore a different >> > theory than existing/accepted QM. >> >> Fascinating! By I assume it never managed to make a big dent? Is it dead >> or dying? >> > > He's one of the only proponents of it. I don't think it has a large > following. I think we're a ways off from experiments that could refute it. > > >> > People who subscribe to CI tend to be the people who don't really care >> about interpretational issues, and don't have a strong opinion >> > on it. Therefore you don't find the "champions of it" as you might find >> for those who subscribe to "non-standard" interpretations. >> >> True! And my proof is that I had a ph.d. in physics for dinner a few >> weeks ago who worked at CERN and now is working at a photonics startup. >> And to my great disappointment her answer to the qm + mwi question was >> "I don't really care". ;) >> > > One would think people get into physics to better understand reality, but > then, I don't know how to explain such a lack of curiosity. > > > >> >> > >> > If you listen to Deutsch you will find he doesn't have an arrogant >> demeanor. For example: >> > https://youtu.be/Kj2lxDf9R3Y?si=4RPRMYLJ8wx3QK1I >> >> Yes, that was not nice of me. It was based on the text, but always >> better to meet in person (or at least listen and watch). >> >> > Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I hadn't seen >> before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been made when he >> > was still writing Fabric of Reality: >> > https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd >> >> Thank you very much! You do realize this will take time away from my >> current watching of Halo? And I do have to say I see similarities >> between Halo and The Expanse. >> > > ?? > > Is Halo airing again or is there just one season? > > The first few seasons of The Expanse were quite great. > > > >> >> > I would start with fabric of reality, if you are interested in his >> explanation. Or if you are waiting for a majority to be converted >> > to MW, simply know that it might take another 50 or another 100 years. >> >> That's a long time to wait! I think I'll start with your youtube >> documentaries, and then take it from there. =) >> > > Thank you! > >> >> >> > I don't see the situation as the greats debating these ideas back and >> forth. I see it more as the momentum of millions of practicing >> > physicists raised under CI through their formative years in college, >> studiously shutting up and calculating, while a comparatively >> > small percentage bothered to ask deeper questions of what does this >> mean, (what is an observer, what is a measurement, how does wave >> >> Does makes one think about scientific indoctrination, and the paradigm >> shifts in philosophy of science! Momentum is building, and unexplainable >> phenomenons are increasing until the paradigm is smashed. Not a smooth, >> nor quick process. >> > > > True. Large scale quantum computers breaking keys might be the impetus for > such a paradigm shift. > > >> > > Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one >> day--when I'm old and crazy." >> > >> > The man has a great sense of humour! =) >> > >> > ?? Definitely. >> >> Hmm, maybe I should try to write him an email in swedish and ask him to >> join the mega-thread? I would not be surprised if he would. He seems >> like that kind of guy! >> > > Worth a shot! > > > >> He also has a brother who is a journalist in sweden and has an >> alternative media blog exploring conspiracy theories, so if that >> openness is genetic or inherent to the Tegmark upbringing, I can >> definitely see how Tegmark was drawn to MWI out of a need to explain. >> > > Interesting I didn't know that. > > > >> >> > Good question. I think as is often the case, when we find something >> that seems like an unnecessary complication, it's not until much >> > later we realize: oh no actually that explains a great deal more, or >> that things if it weren't like that, life wouldn't be possible. >> >> Do you think occams razor here can be a crutch, and that it risks >> limiting us? Many people say "occam" and close the case. But continued >> digging, as you say, will perhaps revel that the added complications did >> have a purpose in the end. >> > > Yes I think it is a guide, but it too can be overly relied upon, to our > detriment. > > >> > So in the short term, theories may not always seem as simple as >> possible, but often this is temporary. For example, general >> > relativity is more complex than Newton's gravity, but general >> relativity also incorporated everything of special relativity too, so >> > in that sense it was still simplifying overall. >> > >> > Or consider the discovery of the neutrino. It seemed at first like a >> completely extraneous particle. But later we found it plays a >> > critical role in releasing elements out of collapsing stars. We >> wouldn't have oxygen or water if not for neutrinos. All the oxygen >> > would fall into a black hole and would be lost forever if not for these >> neutrinos. ?? >> >> Well, that's the beauty and fun of it all. It never ends! ;) QM is king >> today and dethroned tomorrow. At the moment, if I understand things >> correctly, there are no strong contenders really? >> > > There is work to unify QM and gravity (quantum gravity theories), the most > prominent being string theory and loop quantum gravity. However it should > be stated that both of these are fundamentally quantum theories. They don't > escape any of the strangeness of QM, rather they just offer a hope that we > can understand both QM and GR as elements of the same more-fundamental > theory. My intuition is that GR is more likely to be changed and modified > than QM, given that in the one resolved example where they gave different > predictions, (the black hole information paradox), QM won out and GR was > wrong. > > >> Oh, that reminds me. That was one of the arguments in the realism vs >> anti-realism debate and whether the intangibles and unobservables have >> existence or not, that historically there were many unobservables that >> did exist, only to later be found to not exist. So having based >> decisions on unobservables historically, they would have been wrong. >> Well, just remembered, and we covered that to a certain extent above >> when I wrote about the value of theories. >> > > Good point. We might also observe that 99.9% of scientific theories have > been proven wrong, so on this empirical basis then, we should never have > any high confidence in our theories. ?? > > >> >> > The platonic world of mathematical truths would exist whether or not >> the physical world existed. It is necessary and self-existent. >> > The same can't be said for the material world. >> >> True. The material world exists are far as we can perceive. It also has >> been a very successful strategy historically, to act as if a material >> world exists with real consequences, but at the end of the day, there is >> always the extreme doubt. > > > Yes it is always good to keep that in mind. As Linde reminds us: > > "We find that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most > conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality > beyond our perceptions. This model of a material world obeying laws of > physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point and > say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are nothing but a > useful tool for the description of matter. This assumption is almost as > natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only > a mathematical tool for the description of matter. We are substituting > reality of our feelings by the successfully working theory of an > independently existing material world. And the theory is so successful that > we almost never think about its possible limitations." > -- Andrei Linde in ?Inflation, Quantum Cosmology, and the Anthropic > Principle? (2002) > > > I think it is better to say that we do not yet >> know the ultimate foundations, and to admit that everything, including >> ones own experience and mind, can be doubted, than to postulate an ideal >> world, or worlds beyond our comprehension. >> > > I am nearly as confident that "2+2=4" is true as I am confident that I am > thinking right now. Moreover, I can show constructively how if we assume > mathematical truth exist independently of us, we can explain many facets of > our perception, and why we come to believe in such things as material > worlds rules by physical laws. > > >> I think I'm fairly happy to postulate a material world based on simply >> pragmatic grounds. >> > > "The principal argument [against materialism] is that thought processes > and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the > external world is the content of our consciousness and that the > consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the > external world could be denied?though it is not very practical to do so." > ? Eugene Wigner in ?Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem? (1961) > > Great minds think alike. ?? > > >> >> > >> > Someone might have argued against Galileo, using this same reasoning, >> and conclude the earth doesn't move, because they can't feel it >> > move (even though Galileo's theory explains why we won't feel it move). >> >> But the advantage there was the testability of his hypothesis. No, it >> would not be tested for many hundreds of years, but at the end of the >> day it was something that predicted something about our physical >> universe. Just like the punch in the face, vs, the lack of reaction when >> a virtual being tries to virtually punch me in the face. >> > > They do predict things about our physical universe though. The fact that > shadows are not perfectly crisp, but always blurry, is an effect other > parallel worlds have on our universe. We can see that shadows are blurry. > It may be less subtle than a punch in the face, but it's there and we can > see it with our own eyes. > > >> question meaningless. ;) >> > >> > Do you think there is an answer? >> > For example would you say that exactly one of the following two >> sentences is true: >> > A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0 >> > B) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1 >> > >> > I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even if we >> can't know which one is true. >> >> Yes, but this is not a state of the world or a scientific theory, so I'd >> argue that this does not apply to our discussion of whether MWI can ever >> be proven or not. Add to that, that we also don't know the answer, so as >> far as we are concerned it is undefined. >> > > Right it is not relevant to the question of MW. I asked for some > clarification regarding your philosophy of mathematics, which you include > more details on below. > > > >> > If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty meaningless >> > question. >> > >> > > What then, if I told you, there was some other larger universe, >> where people there had computed it, and determined >> > which it was. >> > > Would that mean they have different mathematical truths there, >> than we have here? >> > >> > I think that question is meaningless if there is no >> bi-directional flow >> > of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, as >> > fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless. >> > >> > When would you say that 17 became prime? >> > A) it's always been prime >> > B) After the big bang >> > C) When 17-year cicadas evolved >> > D) When man invented numbers >> > E) When man first counted to 17 >> > F) When humans defined prime numbers >> > G) When the first person proved 17 was prime >> > H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime >> > I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 is prime >> >> I'd say H and I. Remove all counsciousness and the concept no longer has >> any existence. >> > > The concept would not exist, but would it's truth exist? > > We define science and reality by what can be objectively studied, what can > two different subjects agree on. > > Two observers can study the same star or chemical element and discover the > same facts about it, so we admit the star or chemical element as something > that is part of reality. > > Likewise, two mathematicians, maybe in different times or places, perhaps > even alien mathematicians in a different galaxy (or even universe) could > discover the same properties of the same numbers. They would compute the > same value for Pi, they would agree Pis is between 3 and 4. > > So when there is objective agreement between two subjects, why then do we > admit the chemical element as part of reality but not these other objects > which we can also objectively study? > > >> >> > Mathematical truths must be constant and observer independent. If they >> change over time, based on what we have done, e.g., if there >> > were 174626847 factors of zero yesterday and 174626848 today, then you >> could prove two mutually inconsistent things which leads to >> > the principle of explosion. >> >> Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has meaning >> when being interpreted by human consciousness. > > > You could say the same thing about matter, could you not? > > > Since math tries to >> describe aspects of nature in human form, > > > Is it uniquely human, or could aliens discover the same mathematical > truths as we have discovered (despite them using different notation)? > > it will follow that every time >> we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool, > > > But as Godel showed, there is no final (or finite) set of rules that > accounts for all mathematical truth. We must constantly strive to develop > ever more powerful theories of mathematical objects, just as physicists > must always strive to develop better more powerful theories in physics. > This again, suggests to me, that mathematical truth is not a human > invention but something infinite and beyond ourselves. It is something we > study, much like we study the physical world. > > > the >> constants will hold. >> > > > > > >> > They only exist when we interpret >> > them. >> > >> > This seems like idealism, only applied to mathematical objects. If all >> the mathematicians go to sleep at the same time, does the >> > ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter stop being 3.14259... >> ? >> >> In terms of human language and meaning yes. Those are only ideas in the >> mind. Of course you can write down the ideas and how to use the >> language. But the concepts are only meaningful to you, when thought >> about. >> >> In terms of aspects in the world, that math tries to describe, no, those >> aspects still hold, assuming an external world of some kind. >> > > Would you say, similarly, that this universe did not exist before there > were any conscious observers within it? > > > >> > This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have >> happened >> > unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;) >> > >> > I feel we are writing a book together. ?? >> >> Oh yes! What should we call it? ;) Maybe it's time to sit down together >> for a month or two and harvest the thread into a book? ;) >> > > We've covered so much it is hard to say what the topic would be. ?? > If there is any overriding theme, it is the tension between scientific > realism and "empirical confirmationism" if that phrase makes sense. > > Jason > >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 03:21:44 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:21:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster quantum decryption Message-ID: https://www.science.org/content/article/surprising-and-supercool-quantum-algorithm-offers-faster-way-hack-internet-encryption Posting especially for Spike to give it the smell test. Does this feel plausible? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 22 03:32:12 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (Gregory Jones) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:32:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Faster quantum decryption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ja but regardless we can always just add longer keys. Quantum or otherwise it is always easier to multiply than to factor. On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 8:23 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://www.science.org/content/article/surprising-and-supercool-quantum-algorithm-offers-faster-way-hack-internet-encryption > > Posting especially for Spike to give it the smell test. Does this feel > plausible? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 05:53:31 2023 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 01:53:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam Message-ID: In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. What the holy fuck? One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. Ignemus lucem aeternam! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 22 06:43:09 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:43:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers Message-ID: <08cb7ed2-3c84-f68a-ee15-856038aa9dcb@swisscows.email> Good evening Jason, (resending as well, I hope this doesn't mess up the threading, but let's hope for the best!) On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > Good evening Jason, > > Wife is sleeping, so now I can pursue my guilty pleasures such as > continuing the mega-thread! ;) > > ?? Ergo... choose your wife with care! ;) > >? ? ? ?I have a feeling that this dialogue is slowly getting to a > stand still, > >? ? ? ?at least from my side. I do not think I have the knowledge to > interpret > >? ? ? ?or understand what you are saying, (as seen below where I > thought you > >? ? ? ?were talking about quantum mechanics but in fact you were > talkingabout > >? ? ? ?ensemble-type theories) > > > > It was my fault for the confusing example. My only point, which I > think you agreed to an extent with in the other > thread, is that if > > a theory makes multiple predictions, (like general relativity), and > we test many of them and find the ones we have > tested to be true, > > then it increases our confidence in the theory and thereby increases > our confidence in the theory itself. If that > theory makes other > > predictions which we have not yet tested, then we have *some > confidence* in those untested predictions. > > Yes, I think that is reasonable, especially when high lighted with > extremely silly examples. When asked about the interiors of black > holes, > I would say that it is more probable that Einstein is right, than that > inside every black hole there sits a chaos monkey causing chaos. > Regardless of where you are on the realism anti-realism scale, I would > think that most, if not all, would rule out the chaos monkey. > > Then I don't think our positions are too far off. I don't?ask?for any belief > or acceptance of some idea as some final truth. Rather, > I see all ideas as having some probability/confidence we might ascribe to > them. And even in such cases when an idea happens to be > true we can never know it is true. Yes, it does seem like we're not that far apart. One difference is our subjective probabilities, and the other is the realism/anti-realism aspect, although, I don't have a fixed position and am somewhere between the two anti-realism positions. Probably an interesting topic for another thread to try and decide on a position there. =) > The most extreme I could imagine is the position of complete > agnosticism, but even extreme agnosticism must agree with the > theoretical equations, regardles of if he thinks we'll ever know for > sure or not. > > > Now there are a number of theories in science which we have tested > and confirmed, which we have obtained direct > observational > > evidence for, which, as it happens, also predict elements of reality > beyond what we can see in this universe.? > > I would probably say postulate, or something similar. Prediction to me, > needs to be verified. Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I > probably get the nuances wrong. > > To postulate is more associated with making an assumption. > > I think a nice way to think about theories (especially if one comes from a > computing background) is to think of them as functions. > A prediction then, is equivalent to evaluating a function for some situation > x: y = F(x). > Then "y", the output of the function, is what we might call that function's > "prediction". > The only thing we have assumed (or postulated) here is the validity of F() > for the situation x. Well, if we decouple it from the real world, and treat it as a function (pure mathematics) then yes, I think that's valid. If a part of the function is verification, then sometimes the function in this reality doesn't compute. Or do I misunderstand you? > Now imagine a situation where mathematicians?only used Wolfram Alpha to plot > functions, and for some reason, Wolfram Alpha could > never plot graphs outside of the range [-10, 10]. Mathematicians could > theorize about the validity of functions outside this range, > and what those plots might look like, but they could never use Wolfram Alpha > (their only window for seeing these functions) to > actually see what they look like there. This is how I feel about using > theories in physics which predict things beyond our present > confines of this point in time, and this point in space, in this branch of > the wave function, in this big bang bubble, in this set of > string theory configuration, etc. That our window is limited, has no direct > bearing on whether or not these functions (or theories) > are valid in ranges outside the window we can see. > > I think our position is a bit like a fish trapped in a pond. We should be > careful not to mistake what we can see, for all that can > be. > > Consider the plight of a brilliant fish scientist confined to a small pond. > This fish scientist observes rocks fall, and bubbles > rise, he also makes precise measurements of the surface of the water on the > pond and finds it to be curved ever so slightly, as if it > is a partial surface of a sphere. The brilliant fish scientist then develops > a theory of gravity, based on the idea that everything > is pulled towards some unseen center. The fish scientist drops two rocks on > opposite sides of the pond, and finds their paths are not > completely parallel, a further confirmation of this theory that everything is > pulled towards a center. Furthermore, the difference in > angle aligns with the curvature of the pond's surface, adding further > credence to his theory (the direction rocks fall is always 90 > degrees from the angle of the pond's surface at the point the rock is dropped > from). > The brilliant fish scientist then makes a bold prediction: he infers that > reality must be much larger than the small pond he is > confined to: the curvature of the pond's surface suggests he lives on a > sphere with a diameter of 40,000 kilometers. The fellow fish, > however, think he is a bit silly for making such a prediction. Though the > fellow fish accept his theory of gravity?and the > measurements of the pond surface's curvature, they think it is unwarranted to > discuss anything?that neither he nor they could ever > confirm. The fish scientist argues, if his theory is true, it explains > everything: why rocks dropped from different points don't fall > in a parallel direction, why the pond's surface is not completely flat, but > curved, and why rocks fall and bubbles rise. Yes, it > implies the existence of things we can't directly see, but such unseen things > are necessary?for his theory to work at all (things > would fall over, or collapse inward, if there wasn't already something > underneath us and to the side of us). > > I think this is where we are. Our best theories necessarily include things > beyond our capacity to see, because they are so powerful. > Note that general relativity makes an analogous prediction regarding the > curvature of space itself. We have used satellites to > measure the curvature of space, and found its curvature to be less than 0.4%. > This implies (assuming general relativity) that space > must go on at least 250X further than what we can see in every direction. So > that the volume of the space we can see is no more than > 1 / 250^3 (or? 1/17,576,000th) of what is out there. What do you say about > the reality of all this other space? It is implied by our > theory (and by our measurement of the curvature of space). But we will never > be able to travel out beyond our present confines to see > this other space. It is over the cosmological horizon. We are, like those > fish, trapped in our own local backwater. Even if a fish > jumps out of the pond to try to see a little further, it still can't see > beyond the horizon. I do agree, with the difference that the prediction is about our space, which we theoretically could explore, as physical beings moving through space. So my probability of belief does assign some value to it and that value is higher than for predictions generating ideas outside of our universe. > > ? > > > Some, like eternal inflation, predict other big bangs, each forming > it's own own "bubble universe". > > > ... (examples) ... > > > > Science is full of theories that predict things we cannot interact > with. These are nonetheless predictions of theories > we have > > tested, and obtained observational evidence for. > > > > It seems we have two choices: > > 1. Reject these theories (for predicting things we cannot see or > test). > > 2. Accept these theories (along with their implication that reality > is bigger than what we can see from our present > vantage point) > > Or 3, remain agnostic > > Can a true agnostic (who neither accepts or rejects any theory) even do > physics? If you give a theory-agnostic physicist a physics > problem to solve, how does he or she?decide which theory to use to make a > prediction? If the??theory-agnostic physicist chooses a > particular theory to use to make a prediction, is that not a form of > acceptance of the theory? It seems to me the true agnostic must > refuse to take any action or make any prediction. I think that depends on what the agnostic believes the theory to be. If it is a tool with the purpose of making predictions and navigating our world, the agnostic can freely use any tools, since the tool is not the world itself. It's just a thought construct that takes input and generates output. If that output can be verfied, it is elevated to something close to knowledge and stops being belief. Those theories do yield extrapolations when they are interpreted in certain ways, that go beyond our world, and the true agnostic ignores those extrapolations. HE might engage in them in order to try and prove them, but if they are per definition outside our world, I do not think he would waste his time and let nobler creatures fight those battles. What is interesting though is the decision to ignore the "extra" for the time being, or assign it some probability. But then the question is, if it is meaningful to play with probabilities when it comes to things outside our world or if that only risks trapping you in the theory. "Sometimes it's hard to agnostic", to paraphrase a famous line from a country song. Hmm, or was it "Stay in your world"...? ;) > or 4, letting the equations do the talking without > human interpretations. > > I don't think that's realistic. You can confine yourself entirely to the > equations, but you still get numerical answers that tell you > reality is bigger than what we see. > For example regarding the mathematics of cosmic inflation. You could ask at > what time period t, does the math predict that inflation > stops? > The equations would provide you a strictly mathematical answer: never > You could also ask for a numerical prediction for the number of big bangs > that inflation will produce once inflation is initiated. > And again you get a numerical answer: infinite. Well, if it is not testable or verifiable, a restatement could be, if I input this value in this equation I get this answer. But yes, I think it is stretching it a bit. We are people and understand our world through our senses, thoughts and language, so doing all the science and expect us to not do anything with the result does seem a bit inhuman. > It's not that scientists woke up one day and wanted to find many universes, > it's that so many of our best theories directly imply > them, from a simple reading of the math. A simple reading of relativity (plus > a measurement of the curvature of space) implies space > is at least tens of millions of times greater than all of the trillions upon > trillions of cubic light years we can see. Our best > theory for explaining the big bang suggests the process that generated it > continues forever, perpetually causing new big bangs for > all time. The math of QM necessitates the introduction of parallel histories, > which interact with ours to cause interference effects > which we see in everyday experiments. These extra histories are there, in the > equations (you can't apply the equations without > including them). Well, I think we've been done this route before. > I would like to draw a line between what, within > a theory, we can test and prove/disprove, and beyond that line, we > statements of the theory we cannot currently (or never) test or prove. > I > think the tools and concepts on each side of this line, should be > treated differently. I do not, however, think that we should stop > theorizing. I think the utility of these extrapolations is in > inspiration and motivation, that makes us push further. I agree that > too > much or too strict agnosticism could lead to us stopping to expand the > horizons. So I agree with some, but I would still like to uphold a > difference of the content of theories between provable and > extrapolation, but both have their value and their use. > > There are three categories of > predictions:?https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg > 1. Tested > 2. Testable but not yet tested > 3. Not testable > #1 of course deserves our greatest credence, but I see no reason to > distinguish credence between #2 and #3. I think 3 is definitely below 2, since it loses any grounding in the world, and is of no use. The trick is to distinguish between 2 and 3 and that is not always so clear, so that is why I am not prepared to dismiss any interpretation of QM. What sounds impossible today might be possible tomorrow, however, interpretations that end up as 3 will always be less credible to me than 2. By putting too much emphasis on 3 on the other hand, can distract us and make us waste our time from other work which clearly falls into 1 and 2. But, that assumes we can make that judgment. > > I don't think we should reject these theories on account of them > implying reality is bigger than what we can see. Why > should we > > suppose we should be in a position to survey all of reality? > > I agree. Even the most outrageous theory can still serve as a mental > tool that manages to create new knowledge and new technology. > > ?? > ? > > >? ? ? ?and as the nr of books and links is increasing > >? ? ? ?that I would have to go through, to provide you with good > answers, I > >? ? ? ?find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. > And that is > >? ? ? ?not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) > Ok, they > >? ? ? ?might be better than the math and physics skills of the average > person, > >? ? ? ?but not anywhere close to the skills of this list. > > > > I think you may be selling yourself short. We all begin somewhere. I > did not major in math or physics, I've just tried > to read a lot > > as science as a subject has always interested me. Much of what I have > learned has come from discussions with others on > lists like > > this one. > > Thank you. I just feel frustrated when the content outpaces my > available > time. But I'll try to hang in there for a while yet. ;) > > ?? > ? > > > I also don't think any special math or science background is required > to understand most of the arguments used for > different QM > > interpretations. > > Ah, but this goes into the language idea I had, that when we humanize > the equations, this could lead to errors and wrong ideas. But as I said > in the other thread, what else can we do? At most, hope for some kind > of > Arrival language, that changes the structure of the brain to enable us > to look beyond. ;) > > > Perhaps?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban ? Ahh.. the language of spock? ;) .u'u (repentance) somehow I can see the logicin that! > ? > > >? ? ? ?So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I > would not > >? ? ? ?be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything > you are > >? ? ? ?saying. > > > > I would be happy to answer any questions, privately or on the list, > you might have if anything I say requires > additional explanation. > > Thank Jason, I'll keep that in mind. > > >? ? ? ?But, let's see. I'll have a look below, and let's see how it > goes, but I > >? ? ? ?feel like I'm approaching my limit in terms of knowledge and > time, and > >? ? ? ?as Wittgenstein said... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one > must be > >? ? ? ?silent". ;) > > > > I would make one amendment to Wittgenstein: "Should you venture where > one cannot speak, ask questions!" > > I'm sure if things I say are unclear to you, there are others on this > list it is unclear to also. > > Good point! > > > Thanks! > ? > > >? ? ? ?> Note: I am not discussing QM as a theory here. I am > discussing a theory that *predicts QM*. (I know this is > confusing > >? ? ? ?given the other > >? ? ? ?> discussions of interpretations of QM below, but this has > nothing to do with QM as a theory, this has to do with > a more > >? ? ? ?general > >? ? ? ?> underlying ensemble theory, which can predict and account for > why the universe happens to be quantum mechanical > in the > >? ? ? ?first place. > >? ? ? ?> QM cannot do this.) > > > >? ? ? ?Ahhh... this I know nothing about. I misunderstood. So that > would > >? ? ? ?probably mean a new beginning for me and a lot of reading I > suspect. > > > > I would guess this work is so new and esoteric they it remains > unknown to 99.9% of physicists. But the point is really > simple: > > That's a shame! I assume it would make it harder to find different > angles and explanations. > > I think there are so many different subfields and specialties that everything > is quite fragmented and compartmentalized, such that > even if one did discover a great unifying theory today, there's a good chance > it would be completely glossed over because no one else > has the right combination of specialties to understand it, assuming that they > even heard about it and read it. Consider that there > are over 10,000 scientific publications every day. How many can any person > read in a day? Sigh, how sad that would be. The truth having existed for decades or centuries, and no one having the knowledge to understand it. > ? > > > No one knew why nature is quantum mechanical. It appeared one of the > most profound mysteries, it tormented many of the > founders of > > the theory. Wheeler spent his whole life trying in vain to understand > why it was this way. > > That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A whole > life!! > > Yes, he continued working well into his 80s. There's a great book which > covers much of Wheeler's life, called?Trespassing on > Einstein's Lawn. > > "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling, that > when?in a decade, a century, or a millennium?we grasp > it, we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How > could we have been so stupid for so long?" > --?John Archibald Wheeler in ?How Come the Quantum?? (1986) Wouldn't surprise me at all! > > "I have never been able to let go of questions like: How come existence? How > come the quantum?" > -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam? (1998) > > Note Wheeler was 87 in 1998. > ? > > > And only very recently have a few researchers offered a plausible > answer. The one thing their explanations share in > common is they > > are ultimate ensemble-type theories (an infinite comprehensive > reality where all possibilities exist). As it turns out, > if you start > > with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is > quantum mechanical. > > But it is just an assumption? > > All theories are assumed.? Very much true. But it is important not to lose sight of that fact I think. > ? > And can the assumption ever be proven? > > Theories are never proven, at best they persist in states of being "not yet > refuted". But our confidence in theories increases as > they survive more and more tests which have the capacity to refute them. And that could be another mega-thread about truth. Don't you think? =) > ? > It > sounds as it by definition, touches things completely outside our > reality, and then it seems to me that they will be forever assumptions. > > Such theories touch on things outside our reality, but they also touch on > things inside our reality. For instance, they make > predictions about things we can observe and test (e.g. predictions about the > nature of reality or properties of physical laws). It is > for this reason that they are falsifiable (there are tests they can undergo > which have the capacity to refute them), and having > passed such tests, we can have a non-zero confidence in them. Possibly, but definitely not the same level of confidence as what can be proven. See above about the agnostics dilemma. > ? > After all, many people "assume" a god or a creator (however you want to > define it) but no matter the assumption, it is not the same as hard > empirical proof. > > > Empirical evidence concerns what is observable. I would agree, that if for > example, there was a theory that made no observable > predictions whatsoever, it would not be a scientific theory and would not be > worthy of our time to discuss. But this is not the case > concerning any of these theories (QM, GR, Inflation, etc.) They all make > predictions we can, and have, tested empirically. Yes, but as you say, the empirical is a non-problem. When interpretations try and "cross over", that's when the fun starts. > ? > > >? ? ? ?> When you understand I am talking about this more fundamental > theory, then you will see my point regarding how > we can > >? ? ? ?have > >? ? ? ?> observational evidence that supports the conclusion of a > reality beyond this one. > > > >? ? ? ?Here we have the problem. In my current state, with so many > years > >? ? ? ?between me now, and me in university, this means very little to > me. > >? ? ? ?Therefore I cannot comment on what you say. I would like to, > but I > >? ? ? ?cannot. Very sorry. =( > > > > No worries, I can give you a one line summary: > > > > Starting from the assumption that every possible observation exists, > you can derive the Shrodinger equation (the key > equation of > > quantum mechanics). > > Is that the only way to derive the equation? Or are there others? > > > I am not aware of others. It also seems that Wheeler was never aware of any, > at least at the time he was still asking: How come the > Quantum? And Wheeler was probably the best connected physicist or recent > memory. > > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that > something exists, it is > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that > proof, I do not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?find it productive to entertain the possibility of > innumerable > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That > leads to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?metaphysical chaos. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Of course. I agree observation evidence is crucial. My point > is that we have it, that is, we have observed our > universe > >? ? ? ?to obey the > >? ? ? ?> Shrodinger equation, and this is evidence for *the more > fundamental theory* which predicts a universe governed > by the > >? ? ? ?Shrodinger > >? ? ? ?> equation. > > > >? ? ? ?I think this might enter Tegmark territory, and my opinion > still stands > >? ? ? ?unchanged. We have observed equations predict events. We then > >? ? ? ?extrapolate things we will (most likely) never be able to > prove. They > >? ? ? ?will forever remain extrapolations. > > > > Every time we use any physical theory to make a prediction, we are > performing an extrapolation. There are an infinite > number of > > potential extrapolations any given theory can make. But we only ever > test a finite number (that is, an infinitesimal > fraction) of > > them. If we are confident in a theory, why can't we be confident in > the untested predictions of that theory? > > Because it depends on if those untested claims can be tested or not. > > Can you explain this part more fully, I don't understand. In both cases, we > exist in a time when it hasn't yet been tested. What then > makes us more confident in the prediction? I don't see why the fact that we > could test it is of any relevance in the time before we > test it. The difference is (and I think something got lost in the text, but I'm not sure) that if theories make predictions about our world, they belong to 1 and 2 above, and if they make predictions in category nr 3, they are just idle speculation. Therefore confidence in theories that help us navigate this world can be higher than extrapolations and interpretations about possible worlds we can never reach. > > > Yes, we can have varying degrees of belief in them, but we can not > claim > that we have direct knowledge, and for me, that is an important > difference that keeps us from letting out speculations lose touch with > reality. Keeping in mind the distinction between knowledge and degree > of > belief I think is good to keep us grounded. That being said however, > theories are important mental tools for the reasons I outlined above. > > >? ? ? ?Lawrence post on the extropolis list struck a chord with me, > and I think > >? ? ? ?it perhaps better illustrates my view of the difference between > proof > >? ? ? ?and extrapolations: > > > >? ? ? ?"People who go down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations > find themselves in a nest of thorns and nettles. > No matter > >? ? ? ?what > >? ? ? ?interpretation it is the attempt to make it something derivable > or the single only consistent interpretation > leads into a > >? ? ? ?growing > >? ? ? ?mire of complexity that does not close. Carroll and others > working on MWI are clearly entering this. Other > >? ? ? ?interpretations similarly > >? ? ? ?hit this reef. The best interpretation is no interpretation. > All interpretations are attempts to make quantum > mechanics > >? ? ? ?transduced > >? ? ? ?into our ordinary way of thinking, but QM is logically > different in a way that makes this impossible. As > Wittgenstein put > >? ? ? ?it, "That > >? ? ? ?which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." That is > the best advice with respect to quantum > interpretations." > > > > This is one reason why I stress that MW is not an interpretation. > It's just the raw math and equations of QM, accepted > as true. You > > don't need to add any further interpretation of them. > > I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM equations, > and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory. > > In that sense it could be called an interpretation (as it adds nothing new to > the theory that isn't already there). Maybe this is an additional point of confusion and difference? The status of theory vs interpretation? > In the sense that I say it is not an interpretation, I do so in a different > sense, because it is just an acceptance that the > underlying equations are true. To me, calling it an interpretation is then a > bit misleading, as we wouldn't call belief that "F = ma" > an interpretation of momentum. To give you another example "In fact, the only claim made by this interpretation is that there is no collapse of the wavefunction. There is just a universal wavefunction that evolves unitarily. The rest is for future physicists and philosophers to try to understand". (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/653331/how-real-are-the-worlds-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation) I tried to find the text where the author did not like the fact that it is interpretation and not theory but couldn't find it. The quote above kind of touches on the spirit of that text at least. > > > It is also listed > under interpretations, and to me, it seems like an interpretation among > many that theorize and try to explain how the qm equations work. > > The existence of many histories is predicted by the equations (it's not the > starting assumption). The parallel histories exist all > the same in CI. CI just adds the assumption that all but one suddenly > disappear when an observer looks at the system. Of course, this > means that before any observers were born in this universe, both CI and MW > agree on the existence of many parallel histories. > > > > >? ? ? ?Regardless, this illustrates something I thought a lot about, > and that > >? ? ? ?is moving from equations to verbal descriptions. That aspect of > >? ? ? ?theoretical physics, moving from nrs and equations, to putting > it into > >? ? ? ?words, has always fascinated me, and I would not be surprised > if that > >? ? ? ?might perhaps be a source of error and confusion. Our words and > >? ? ? ?languagesare not mathematical and number based, so maybe a > distortion > >? ? ? ?does take place when we translate between the two languages? > > > > I don't really see that as the issue here. CI says the universe does > not obey the equations of QM always. It's not > merely using > > different words to explain the same math, it's proposing that the > math of the theory is wrong, and that reality is > governed by > > different math than is it expressed by the equations of QM. This > different math would describe the process of > observation and > > Well, here I agree based on how I understand CI vs MWI. If I understand > you correctly CI needs some adjustment of the equation right, which MWI > does not need? Please correct me here. So CI according to what I said > (or read) above, would perhaps move closer to becoming an additional > theory since it modifies or adjusts the equation? I'm on deep water > here, so take it with a grain of salt. > > > You're correct. CI needs to describe measurement. That is, what qualifies as > a measurement, and why does it lead to a deviation from > Schrodinger's equation (as happens under it's hypothesized "collapse of the > wave function").? If fleshed out, this would be a > different theory from QM without collapse. But as it is, even proponents of > CI disagree about when collapse happens. It used to be > thought any measurement would do it, but the? the quantum eraser experiment > shows can't be our measurement that does it, so perhaps > our knowledge (or our consciousness) of the result triggers it. In saying our > consciousness causes collapse, it has tied our progress > in the measurement problem to the question of what consciousness is. And this > is why the only known experimental test to disprove > collapse as objectively real requires a conscious observer whom we are able > to quantum erase their memory. > > > > > measurement which would say when the universe stops obeying QM during > wave function collapse. But no advocate of CI, > other than > > perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would > be. If advocates of CI did propose alternate > mathematical > > Give them time! ;) > > They've had 100 years. ?? Come on, what about 100 more? ;) > > > > descriptions for their theory, it would be clear that MW and > Copenhagen are different theories. CI refuses to make such > > specifications which keeps the waters muddied, and maintains the > illusion that no possible test can be done to > distinguish between > > them. > > Refuses to make such specifications... yet. ;) Another justification > for > my agnosticism is that we've not reached the finish line and many > things > and geniuses could come and go. Sadly, as you said in the example of > heliocentrism, it can take 100s of years. =( > > But the thing is, ever since Everett we have had a solution to the > measurement problem. He showed why we would have the appearance of > wave function collapse even if the wave function never collapsed. Ever since > they time, I think it's become a mind of fools errand to > try to explain it as a real phenomenon (when we can show how without assuming > it, we can explain it's appearance). > The situation is a bit like trying to find some new unseen force that kept > the moon in the sky, well after Newton's theory of gravity > and inertia provided us a perfect explanation for what keeps it there. > > > > >? ? ? ?But nothing prevents us from not doing it either. The one thing > that > >? ? ? ?does help is observable evidence. And extrapolating to other > universes > >? ? ? ?and other realms I think definitely makes that more difficult. > The tool > >? ? ? ?"breaks down" so to speak. > > > > Can we not reach agreement that relativity implies that other points > in time exist, even though we can never travel to > these other > > times to confirm their existence? > > Since we live "in time" I find that proposition easier to swallow, than > universes completely beyond this one. So my degree of belief is higher > in points in time, partly supported by my human experience. > > I think there the right framing, in terms of different degrees of confidence. > > For instance, I might be 99% confident in the existence of past and future > points in time, but 95% confident in the many histories of > QM. Makes sense. And in my case, since I like to stick to the pragmatically material, at the moment my confidence in MWI and other similar interpretations is very low, just as it is when it comes to the bearded man in the sky. Do I say 0%? Probably not, but how close to 0 is 0? ;) But at the same time I am reluctant to add probabilities to states and things out of this world, and I feel much better saying we don't know. > >? ? ? ?As I said, when smart people created and performed the > experiments that > >? ? ? ?prove MWI (or any other interpretation) beyond doubt, I'll > gladly join > >? ? ? ?the choire if I understand the proof. If it is not possible to > produce a > >? ? ? ?proof that I can understand, I'll withhold judgement until I > do, or > >? ? ? ?until there is a comfortable consensus, although that can be > deadly too. > > > > I think there already are proofs you could understand. Given your > technical background, and interest in cryptography, I > would start > > with the ability of quantum computers to factor RSA keys. All you > need consider is Deutsch's question: when a quantum > computer > > factors a number that requires the evaluation of 10^500 unique > states, where is that computation being performed (when > our universe > > has just 10^80 atoms)? The right answer comes out, but where did it > come from? How was it computed? > > But, based on Bills input, I don't see it as conclusive evidence of > MWI. > I see it as a frontier that is not yet understood. > > It is completely understood from the equations of QM (which imply the reality > of many parallel histories of the quantum computer > realizes). > > You only get the handwaving "we don't know" from the interpretations that > deny the reality of these parallel states. But in denying > the reality of the intermediate parallel states it becomes impossible to > explain the correct answer existing in final state. > > To seal the deal, ask what happens when we run a brain simulation on a > quantum computer, initialized so it perceives many different > inputs. Does this not realize many parallel conscious states? We don't know. Let's run a brain simulation and see how it goes. What you say is hand waving, I interpret as many view points, the agnostic one being one of them like the quote above. > Among the many ways it > could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it > could work. > > Look at the explanations the AI gave under different assumed interpretations. > Did you find the explanation assuming CI satisfactory? Due to my lack of the underlying equations, I would not trust myself to judge, except for the fact, that I do feel more inclinved to believe theories which do not postulate multiple worlds. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) > is performed, that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?brings final evidence for MWI,? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?that would be filtered through experts, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence > would then shoot up > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?to close to 100%. > > > > I think you may be overly optimistic about how quickly these things > happen. It took 100 years for people to accept > Copernicus's idea > > after his book was published. People do not expand their ontologies > readily. > > Most likely true. It takes time. At the end of the day, we're only > human > (at the moment). > > >? ? ? ?> I think you would still have to wait for the CI adherents to > die off, as Planck suggested: > >? ? ? ?> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle > >? ? ? ?> As it is, I think the existence of working quantum computers > already constitutes such proof for MW. Bell's > experiment > >? ? ? ?too, is proof > >? ? ? ?> of MW, if you believe special relativity is true and nothing > travels faster than light. > > > >? ? ? ?Nice methodology. ;) I've seen other proposals for other > experiments > >? ? ? ?which have or have not proven other interpretations. > > > > I am interested to see these if you can provide links. > > Here is one example: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments > > I don't think anything there is specific to Bohm's interpretation. I see > Bohm's interpretation as entirely philosophical. It admits > the existence of all the parallel histories, it just says that only one of > them is "really real" and that the unfortunate souls in > the branches that aren't really real are not really conscious. Well, that's one example that shows that the various interpretations have their own ways of believing they can prove one or the other. Correctly or incorrectly, they do exist. > "An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the potential > validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil > droplets. > In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a vibrating > fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves produced > by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical behavior > with > remarkable accuracy". > > The question to ask is whether Bohm's theory predicts anything different we > could observe about the electron compared to conventional > QM. I would be greatly surprised to learn that it does. > > > > >? ? ? ?So we'll see. As > >? ? ? ?you said in an earlier message, the MWI:ers are increasing, but > >? ? ? ?Copenhagen is still in the lead. On the other hand, science is > not a > >? ? ? ?democracy, so all it takes is one person being right and one > proof. This > >? ? ? ?is why I do not like my own approach of looking at the > comfortable > >? ? ? ?consensus. But, not being a theoretical physicist, what else > can such a > >? ? ? ?man do? =( > > > > Yes this is a big problem. There's so many specialized disciplines an > not enough time to become proficient in more than > a m small few > > of them. > > > > Perhaps the best bet for people on our position is to read books by > physicists for popular audiences. Read two books by > two prominent > > representatives from opposing sides of an issue, and weigh the > strengths of their arguments. > > Yes, I think that is a good start. But the time restriction still > stands, so we have to choose our topics carefully. ;) > > It reminds me of the book the improvement of the mind by Isac Watts and > to some extent How to think by Henry Hazlitt. > > I find it so wonderful how they thought that man should pick an area of > science and study it for its own pleasure and thereby improve his mind. > Then engage in thoughtful debate and conversation to make sure the best > ideas survive. > > I then look at public discourse today and I think that both men would > rotate in their graves. ;) > > True. > > > > >? ? ? ?> It is good to acknowledge this. So then, do I take it that > your objection to MW is not that we cannot see them, > but > >? ? ? ?that there is not > >? ? ? ?> yet a consensus of scientists that accepts them? > > > >? ? ? ?Yes and no. A time proven consensus of scientists will > definitely tilt > >? ? ? ?me in favour of the concept. The other thing which annoys me, > and I know > >? ? ? ?you have tried to explain it, but I do not understand it, is > that there > >? ? ? ?can be no bi-directional information flow between them. So to > me, it > >? ? ? ?seems like a pointless theory. > > > > I wouldn't say it's pointless. I think understanding MW as an > implication of QM was crucial to the conception and > invention of > > quantum computers. Both Feynman and Deutsch believe in many worlds, > and both contributed to their realization. > > > > > >? ? ? ?I think your Tegmark book and my reply to > >? ? ? ?that page you quoted would probably be as far as I would be > willing to > >? ? ? ?go. So I'm not in principle opposed to MWI due to any spiritual > grounds, > >? ? ? ?and as you say, once a time tested consensus appears, I will be > more > >? ? ? ?likely to accept that theory, and... I do hope that by then, > the > >? ? ? ?explanations and experiments which will have created this > consensus will > >? ? ? ?have been translated into language and explanation which > someone like me > >? ? ? ?can understand. > > > > > > Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" book. > I might recommend that if you want to see his > best attempt at > > explaining it. > > Thank you Jason, I've added it to my book list. > > > ?? > > > >? ? ? ?No, I do not see them as equivalent. Instead of me defining the > >? ? ? ?difference between these 5 terms, take me to the next step of > your > >? ? ? ?argument, and I'll take it from there. > > > > Sorry I was unclear. I did not mean to compare all five, but rather > to ask to compare (math, logic, reason, and > philosophy) vs. > > language games. > > Ahh, got it! Well, to start with I'd change the grouping to (reason), > (math, logic), (philosophy), (language games). > > Reason underlying all activities. Math and logic being important tools > in science and philosophy. > > Language games (depending on how you define language) can then be > played > outside of any of the activities such as in theological debate, within > the limits of a social game, but also within the setting of science, > religion and within philosophy. > > > Most nominalists say, for example, that math is only a language game. > So I was curious if this was the basis for saying > the same of > > other fields, such as theology. > > No, I think it was the theology that triggered me here, since I don't > play that game according to the rules of theologists, which makes those > discussions fairly meaningless to me, unless we beforehand go through > "the rules". > > A rational theologian, could use logic and reason in their analysis though, > could they not? Well, logic only shows us the relationship between terms, so it would be very convincing. It would be a game where terms, he defines at will, conforms to them. > >? ? ? ?> like "If omniscience is inconsistent, then if God exists, God > is not omniscient." > > > >? ? ? ?Well, since I do not believe in god, theology for me is just > wordplay. > > > > There are an infinite number of possible conceptions of God. So I do > not know what you mean when you say you do not > believe in God. > > Sorry my bad! Again theology is what spooked me, and I was referring to > the bearded man in the sky. > > I assumed so. ?? > > > > Many religions define God as the cause of existence. If you believe > this universe has a cause then you believe in the > God of these > > religions. > > Yes, of course. If we start to hack away at god and modify the concept, > I am certain you can make me a believer depending on the definition. =) > > Then we are doing theology, hopefully not the kind that scares you. ?? Well, not what I would call theology. But again, we can play by your definition of theology, and yes, we're doing theology. I think you should come up with a new term. I think keeping "theology" will close a lot of minds to what you have to say. > > > > > Sikhs, among other religions, define God as truth. If you believe in > Truth, then you believe in the god of the Sikhs. > ... (good examples)... > > And so on... > > > > So the statement that one doesn't believe in God is rather empty, > absent further specification. > > Agreed! > > > ?? > > > >? ? ? ?To me, it is meaningless. If you do believe in god, I fully > respect > >? ? ? ?that, and of course it follows that theology is important to > you. Since > >? ? ? ?I do not, my opinion is that it gives us nothing. > > > > Science and rationality can be applied far more broadly than most are > aware. It can penetrate questions and topics > usually assumed to > > belong forever to the sphere of religion, such as questions like: why > we exist, why we are here, the meaning of life, > and what > > happens after we die, do we have free will, etc. > > Well, here I am not in agreement with you. I did read your blog entry > on > the meaning of life for instance, and I do like the way you structured > it, but I do not buy your conclusion. But that might perhaps be another > mega-thread? =) > > I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of > departure between our views with regards to this subject. I don't know if we should start that one now, or let this one run its course first? > > > > > It's not that theology is important to me, what's important is that > science not shy away from any subject, including > theology. Doing > > so would be a disservice to both science and religion. > > Again, I think here I do not agree. Science can of course investigate > the phenomenon of religion from a social and psychological point of > view, but it can never explain it. > > What makes you so certain? Because it is by its nature a subjective and deeply personal experience. You run into the qualia problem of redness. You can describe of course, how it affects someones life, they can verbally or visually tell you about it, but you can never yourself know the meaning of it for the other person. So the external, objective side, science can deal with perfectly well, but the subjective, meaningful side, science cannot deal with. > Traditional religion as exprienced > phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science. > > Religion rooted in personal experience is often distinguished with the term > "mysticism." Science, concerned with the objective then, > would have great difficulty handling mysticism, which is based on subjective > experience. Yes, exactly my point. I think here, as with god and theology, we were just not careful about definitions, so I think we're very close in our opinions here. But let's see. > > This is one of the main difficulties science has with studying consciousness > (which is entirely subjective). But I feel you would not > say that consciousness is entirely outside the scope of science, on account > of consciousness being a subjective phenomenon. No, consciousness objectified, yes. Subjectified no. > > > > >? ? ? ?> For example, see these sections from my articles: > >? ? ? ?>? *? > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts > >? ? ? ?>? *? > https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife > >? ? ? ?>? *? > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God > > > >? ? ? ?I think there is no rational evidence of god. > > > > You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of any? > The two are very different statements. > > Depends on your definition of god. So let's start with the easy option > and say that I believe there is not, and can not be, any rational > evidence of the bearded man in the sky. > > But I skipped ahead, and let's play with the definitions, and then of > course, when we move away from the classical one, it gets more > interesting. > > > Yes, I agree. > > > > The first interpretation would serve to close one's mind to anything > that make shake that believe. It would lead one to > avoid reading > > the links I provided (to preserve that *atheistic* belief). > > If only you knew how many hours in my youth I spent arguing that > hard-nosed atheism (with that I mean there can 100% never ever be a god > under any circumstances) is also a position of belief. > > > Indeed. ?? > > > > The second interpretation would, on the other hand, encourage one to > seek out such evidence and would lead one to read > the links I > > provided (to test your *agnostic* belief and see if any such evidence > is out there). > > This I like! > > > God or gods (defined as beings of vastly greater capacity than us) > fall out naturally in many theories: > > But here already I'm a believer! My computer and current AI:s have > vastly greater capacity than me in some domains, so according to that > defintion, sir, yes sir! > > > - Spatially infinite universes > > - Mathematical Platonism > > - Quantum Multiverse theories > > - String theory landscapes > > - Simulation Hypothesis > > Not a fan of the above. > > > - Technological Singularity > > Here there is much common ground and basis for discussion about > definition of god. > > > "Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater > knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater > creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every > monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of > these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite > intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite > love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never > achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes > exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution > moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although > never quite reaching this ideal." > -- Ray Kurzweil in ?The Singularity is Near? (2005) > > > You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can > explain how it leads to beings that are superior to > ourselves, and > > No, no, god as superior being, no quarrel there. I would not define it > as god myself, but if that is the definition we're using, then yes, it > follows from singularity that there will be gods. I'm very confident in > that belief. > > > ?? > > > >? ? ? ?If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists > by now. > > > > I doubt it. The evidence will be when you observe how this post will > not convert any atheist on this list into a > theist. If pressed, > > they will pick a specific definition of God, like "an old man in the > clouds who cares about our what people do in their > bedrooms" and > > thereby refute the existence of God. > > Guilty! > > > ?? > > But I also admitted that given your definition and the > singularity scenario, you are right so don't judge me too harshly! ;) > > > I don't! Unlike many others, you were open to considering other definitions > and changing your beliefs according based on the > different definitions. The atheists on the other hand, tend to never accept > other definitions besides the one god they chose to not > believe in. I think that is due to fear of losing control and predictability of the world perhaps. And the other kind I've read about are people who were abused within the framework of a religion. But I digress. > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to > intellectually > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?express an experience or fundamental belief which is > not provable. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> That is quite possible. But one almost must be careful to > avoid relying on agnosticism as a crutch and thereby > close > >? ? ? ?off one's mind > >? ? ? ?> to the possibility such evidence could exist. > > > >? ? ? ?Yes! I think this is incredibly important and I worry about > exactly > >? ? ? ?that. However, my opinion of god is that the only way to know > him is > >? ? ? ?through subjective, uncommunicable experience. Without that and > without > >? ? ? ?faith, any proof will fail. With faith or with that deep > experience, any > >? ? ? ?proof can serve to fortify your belief. > > > > What about the Gods that follow as implications of the theories I > mention above? No subjective incommunicable > experience is needed > > there. > > The ethereal ones I'm not a fan of, but I definitely agree with you in > the singularity theory, even though _personally_, that does not match > my > definition of god, which is the more classical version (if you press > me, > I think my favourite classical version is probably something unitarian > or > quakerist). > > > ?? > > > > >? ? ? ?But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, > and Karl > >? ? ? ?Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using > religion as a > >? ? ? ?crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your > experience. > >? ? ? ?Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to > an object > >? ? ? ?and closing him off. > > > > Valid concerns. > > If you're interested I can send you a few short books. But be warned! > Much of it is incomprehensible to me, but he does make some good > points. > > > I am curious but also pressed for time, so I don't know when I would have > time to read them. I will take a look though. Will send you off list, and just put them on the virtual reading list. ;) > > > > >? ? ? ?I like how you point out that agnosticism might be another > crutch. I > >? ? ? ?will think more about that. > > > > :-) > > > >? ? ? ?On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so > if you > >? ? ? ?are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better > avoid him. > > > > I don't think I've ever quite understood what essentialism is. > > Probably no one does. I guess there is a reason for the term > incontinental philosophy. ;) > > That's a good one! ?? Glad you liked it. Don't know if I rediscovered it or invented it but I am pretty pleased with it. ;) > > > >? ? ? ?Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to > articles that > >? ? ? ?say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know > myself, > >? ? ? ?and you have probably found them yourself. > > > > That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting > to explain quantum computer not relying on MW. > > I guess some suspend their judgement awaiting further evidence, and I > am > absolutely certain that there are many who are trying but we are not > aware of them. Last night I heard of something called the zero-worlds > theory! I have no idea if it makes sense, but it obviously was inspired > by the MWI. > > > It is explained well in this talk:? > https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=PFH_UFGrvKYGQnDk > > I am quite partial to the "zero universe interpretation", it highlights the > fact that what we call universes are emergent and not > quite real in the sense our intuition suggests. It is quite similar to the > "many-minds interpretation". All the these theories accept > a plethora of stuff, where they differ is in what they consider as the truly > fundamental unit of this reality. Many-worlds would say > it's the material, whereas zero universe/many-minds would say it's the > observer-state (i.e. consciousness). > > I think this view, that consciousness is more fundamental is closer to the > truth. It is not that "worlds split" but rather that > "consciousness differentiates." I had a feeling you would enjoy it! =) > > > >? ? ? ?I am certain each interpretation has > >? ? ? ?their champion and I amcertain Deutsch happens to be a champion > of MWI. > > > > I am not aware of any equivalently prominent living champions of CI. > Penrose might fall into this category, but his > theory is > > something different from conventional CI, he proposes a quantum > gravity effect that causes collapse. It is therefore a > different > > theory than existing/accepted QM. > > Fascinating! By I assume it never managed to make a big dent? Is it > dead > or dying? > > > He's one of the only proponents of it. I don't think it has a large > following. I think we're a ways off from experiments that could > refute it. > > > > People who subscribe to CI tend to be the people who don't really > care about interpretational issues, and don't have a > strong opinion > > on it. Therefore you don't find the "champions of it" as you might > find for those who subscribe to "non-standard" > interpretations. > > True! And my proof is that I had a ph.d. in physics for dinner a few > weeks ago who worked at CERN and now is working at a photonics startup. > And to my great disappointment her answer to the qm + mwi question was > "I don't really care". ;) > > > One would think people get into physics to better understand reality, but > then, I don't know how to explain such a lack of curiosity. I asked about it, and the reason was too see the world. The fact that it ended up being physics was that it was just an easy subject for the person and led to easily achieving scholarships which led to being able to travel and to see the world. > > > > >? ? ? ?Likewise, what he thinks is obfuscatory nonsense, might have > meaning, > >? ? ? ?just that he doesn't understand it. > > > > The thing is no one is even offering this "obfuscatory nonsense". > There's simply silence. > > Or suspended judgment? ;) No, point taken. > > >? ? ? ?so I, at least, > >? ? ? ?won't judge. I do still hold the opinion that there are many > other > >? ? ? ?people who are equally arrogant and faithful to their own > >? ? ? ?interpretation. > > > > If you listen to Deutsch you will find he doesn't have an arrogant > demeanor. For example: > > https://youtu.be/Kj2lxDf9R3Y?si=4RPRMYLJ8wx3QK1I > > Yes, that was not nice of me. It was based on the text, but always > better to meet in person (or at least listen and watch). > > > Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I hadn't > seen before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been > made when he > > was still writing Fabric of Reality: > > https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd > > Thank you very much! You do realize this will take time away from my > current watching of Halo? And I do have to say I see similarities > between Halo and The Expanse. > > > ?? > > Is Halo airing again or is there just one season? No, just one season. Since I have never played the game I enjoy it. But I suspect hard core fans will most likely not enjoy it. > The first few seasons of The Expanse were quite great. Oh yes! I mentally stopped with the gate, and the rest I try to forget. > > > > >? ? ? ?> David Deutsch says of?MW: "It is not in fact an > ?interpretation? of quantum theory at all, any more than > dinosaurs are > >? ? ? ?an > >? ? ? ?> ?interpretation? of the fossil record. It is simply what > quantum mechanics is. ?The only astonishing thing is > that > >? ? ? ?that?s still > >? ? ? ?> controversial,? Deutsch says. > > > >? ? ? ?To me, it is not interesting what Deutsch says, it is more > interesting > >? ? ? ?what Deutsch explains. If Deutsch is not able to explain it in > a way > >? ? ? ?that makes the majority accept it, then that is a failing of > Deutsch. > > > > I would start with fabric of reality, if you are interested in his > explanation. Or if you are waiting for a majority to > be converted > > to MW, simply know that it might take another 50 or another 100 > years. > > That's a long time to wait! I think I'll start with your youtube > documentaries, and then take it from there. =) > > > Thank you! > > > If you want to know the answer now, you will need to me put some work > in to understand the issues. But I think this > could be done in > > a few hours contemplating the question of where is the computation > being performed when the 500 digit number is > factored. > > > > Feel free to ask me any other questions related to this that might > come to you. I will do my best to try to answer > them. > > > > > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Also: "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum > theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally > true as > >? ? ? ?a description > >? ? ? ?> of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, > and even anger.? > > > >? ? ? ?Cynicism and anger I do not like. Incomprehension on the other > hand, I > >? ? ? ?can fully embrace. Again, if he cannot explain it in a way to > make it > >? ? ? ?comprehensible it is on him. But anger and cynicism he does not > deserve, > >? ? ? ?there I support him. > > > > > > ?? > > > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps > talking past each > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. > =) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Yes, some progress, I hope. :-) > > > >? ? ? ?My biggest insight so far is how complex and ground breaking > the subject > >? ? ? ?matter is, and how little I know. But I also think, looking at > your > >? ? ? ?quotes, that there is a lot of emotions and ego involved when > the giants > >? ? ? ?are debating this, and that is sad. > > > > I don't see the situation as the greats debating these ideas back and > forth. I see it more as the momentum of millions > of practicing > > physicists raised under CI through their formative years in college, > studiously shutting up and calculating, while a > comparatively > > small percentage bothered to ask deeper questions of what does this > mean, (what is an observer, what is a measurement, > how does wave > > Does makes one think about scientific indoctrination, and the paradigm > shifts in philosophy of science! Momentum is building, and > unexplainable > phenomenons are increasing until the paradigm is smashed. Not a smooth, > nor quick process. > > > > True. Large scale quantum computers breaking keys might be the impetus for > such a paradigm shift. Oh that will certainly have political repercussions and will change society fundamentally. No more secrets? Could we live with it? > > >? ? ? ?> Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one > day--when I'm old and crazy." > > > >? ? ? ?The man has a great sense of humour! =) > > > > ?? Definitely. > > Hmm, maybe I should try to write him an email in swedish and ask him to > join the mega-thread? I would not be surprised if he would. He seems > like that kind of guy! > > > Worth a shot! Will do! > > > > He also has a brother who is a journalist in sweden and has an > alternative media blog exploring conspiracy theories, so if that > openness is genetic or inherent to the Tegmark upbringing, I can > definitely see how Tegmark was drawn to MWI out of a need to explain. > > > Interesting I didn't know that. > > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very > consistent! =) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your > agnosticism. > > > >? ? ? ?Thank you Jason, and thank you for the great idea of the risk > of being > >? ? ? ?too agnostic! > > > > You're welcome Daniel, thank you for making my evening so > thought-filled! > > You're welcome! > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Humans had no answer to this generally, until rather > recently. Agains, Russell Standish, and Markus Muller have > worked > >? ? ? ?out a basis > >? ? ? ?> for Occam's Razor, from ensemble type theories. That is, they > explain not only why the universe has something > like a > >? ? ? ?Shrodinger > >? ? ? ?> equation behind it, but also why the simplest laws tend to be > the right ones. > > > >? ? ? ?Why do they say "tend" and not "always"? > > > > Good question. I think as is often the case, when we find something > that seems like an unnecessary complication, it's > not until much > > later we realize: oh no actually that explains a great deal more, or > that things if it weren't like that, life wouldn't > be possible. > > Do you think occams razor here can be a crutch, and that it risks > limiting us? Many people say "occam" and close the case. But continued > digging, as you say, will perhaps revel that the added complications > did > have a purpose in the end. > > > Yes I think it is a guide, but it too can be overly relied upon, to our > detriment. Having read my fair share of philosophical debates, that has always been my intuition. I think it is a good tool, but also one tha can easily lead us astray and be misused. > > > So in the short term, theories may not always seem as simple as > possible, but often this is temporary. For example, > general > > relativity is more complex than Newton's gravity, but general > relativity also incorporated everything of special > relativity too, so > > in that sense it was still simplifying overall. > > > > Or consider the discovery of the neutrino. It seemed at first like a > completely extraneous particle. But later we found > it plays a > > critical role in releasing elements out of collapsing stars. We > wouldn't have oxygen or water if not for neutrinos. All > the oxygen > > would fall into a black hole and would be lost forever if not for > these neutrinos. ?? > > Well, that's the beauty and fun of it all. It never ends! ;) QM is king > today and dethroned tomorrow. At the moment, if I understand things > correctly, there are no strong contenders really? > > > There is work to unify QM and gravity (quantum gravity theories), the most > prominent being string theory and loop quantum gravity. > However it should be stated that both of these are fundamentally quantum > theories. They don't escape any of the strangeness of QM, > rather they just offer a hope that we can understand both QM and GR as > elements of the same more-fundamental theory. My intuition is > that GR is more likely to be changed and modified than QM, given that in the > one resolved example where they gave different > predictions, (the black hole information paradox), QM won out and GR was > wrong. Strange! I haven't heard about string theory in a long while. > > > Oh, that reminds me. That was one of the arguments in the realism vs > anti-realism debate and whether the intangibles and unobservables have > existence or not, that historically there were many unobservables that > did exist, only to later be found to not exist. So having based > decisions on unobservables historically, they would have been wrong. > Well, just remembered, and we covered that to a certain extent above > when I wrote about the value of theories. > > > Good point. We might also observe that 99.9% of scientific theories have been > proven wrong, so on this empirical basis then, we > should never have any high confidence in our theories. ?? Aha... spoken like a true agnostic! Did I just convert you? ;) > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> physical experiments never tell us what any thing > *is*, only how things behave. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?But we can never know what anything "is" except our own > consciousness. I > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?think a material world is the surer bet, over, what > seems like a > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist > world. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> A platonic world can be shown to explain the appearance of a > material world. It is thus a simpler theory than > material > >? ? ? ?world?+ > >? ? ? ?> platonic world, it is simply: platonic world. > > > >? ? ? ?Or simply the material world? Or simply nothing at all? The > null set? > > > > The platonic world of mathematical truths would exist whether or not > the physical world existed. It is necessary and > self-existent. > > The same can't be said for the material world. > > True. The material world exists are far as we can perceive. It also has > been a very successful strategy historically, to act as if a material > world exists with real consequences, but at the end of the day, there > is > always the extreme doubt. > > Yes it is always good to keep that in mind. As Linde reminds us: > > "We find that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently > formulated if we assume that there is some underlying > reality beyond our perceptions. This model of a material world obeying laws > of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our > starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are > nothing but a useful tool for the description of matter. > This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous > assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the > description of matter. We are substituting reality of our feelings by the > successfully working theory of an independently existing > material world. And the theory is so successful that we almost never think > about its possible limitations." > -- Andrei Linde in ?Inflation, Quantum Cosmology, and the Anthropic > Principle? (2002) Good quote. > > > I think it is better to say that we do not yet > know the ultimate foundations, and to admit that everything, including > ones own experience and mind, can be doubted, than to postulate an > ideal > world, or worlds beyond our comprehension. > > > I am nearly as confident that "2+2=4" is true as I am confident that I am > thinking right now. Moreover, I can show constructively how > if we assume mathematical truth exist independently of us, we can explain > many facets of our perception, and why we come to believe > in such things as material worlds rules by physical laws. > > > I think I'm fairly happy to postulate a material world based on simply > pragmatic grounds. > > > "The principal argument [against materialism] is that thought processes and > consciousness are the primary concepts, that our > knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that > the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the > contrary, logically, the external world could be denied?though it is not very > practical to do so." > ? Eugene Wigner in ?Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem? (1961) > > Great minds think alike. ?? ;) > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, > any of the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?interpretations could be true, but just as a god could > exist, I'll > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more > proof is known and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?when he or they can be used to make testable > predictions. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> But isn't this inconsistent with your strong bet on > materialism? What proof do you have that lets you ascribe a > near > >? ? ? ?certainty to > >? ? ? ?> materialism, but deny the same could be done for MW? > > > >? ? ? ?The fact that it hurts when I get punched in the face, at the > same time, > >? ? ? ?it does not hurt when someone in the other world tries to punch > me in > >? ? ? ?the face. > > > > Someone might have argued against Galileo, using this same reasoning, > and conclude the earth doesn't move, because they > can't feel it > > move (even though Galileo's theory explains why we won't feel it > move). > > But the advantage there was the testability of his hypothesis. No, it > would not be tested for many hundreds of years, but at the end of the > day it was something that predicted something about our physical > universe. Just like the punch in the face, vs, the lack of reaction > when > a virtual being tries to virtually punch me in the face. > > They do predict things about our physical universe though. The fact that > shadows are not perfectly crisp, but always blurry, is an > effect other parallel worlds have on our universe. We can see that shadows > are blurry. It may be less subtle than a punch in the > face, but it's there and we can see it with our own eyes. Well, if it is that simple, I am sure that the MWI will soon become dominant. But something tells me that the fact that shadows are blurry can probably be explainedin other ways, or perhaps, that we cannot exactly explain it yet. But, a good example nevertheless! > > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Because they never get consciously computed. The > concept of pi and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a > physical brain > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). > The actually > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist > without the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Do you believe that the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is > either '0' or '1'? Or would you say it is a meaningless > >? ? ? ?question because no > >? ? ? ?> one in this universe could ever determine which it was? > > > >? ? ? ?Well, to be honest, yes, outside the scope of this discussion I > do > >? ? ? ?consider the question meaningless. ;) > > > > Do you think there is an answer? > > For example would you say that exactly one of the following two > sentences is true: > > A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0 > > B)?the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1 > > > > I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even if we > can't know which one is true. > > Yes, but this is not a state of the world or a scientific theory, so > I'd > argue that this does not apply to our discussion of whether MWI can > ever > be proven or not. Add to that, that we also don't know the answer, so > as > far as we are concerned it is undefined. > > > Right it is not relevant to the question of MW. I asked for some > clarification regarding your philosophy of mathematics, which you > include more details on below. Sorry! Misunderstood. > > > > >? ? ? ?If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty > meaningless > >? ? ? ?question. > > > >? ? ? ?> What then, if I told you, there was some other larger > universe, where people there had computed it, and > determined > >? ? ? ?which it was. > >? ? ? ?> Would that mean they have different mathematical truths > there, than we have here? > > > >? ? ? ?I think that question is meaningless if there is no > bi-directional flow > >? ? ? ?of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, > as > >? ? ? ?fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless. > > > > When would you say that 17 became prime? > > A) it's always been prime > > B) After the big bang > > C) When 17-year cicadas evolved > > D) When man invented numbers > > E) When man first counted to 17 > > F) When humans defined prime numbers > > G) When the first person proved 17 was prime > > H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime > > I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 is > prime? > > I'd say H and I. Remove all counsciousness and the concept no longer > has > any existence. > > > The concept would not exist, but would it's truth exist? As long as there is a mind to evaluate the truth, yes. Without minds, just matter. > We define science and reality by what can be objectively studied, what can > two different subjects agree on. > > Two observers can study the same star or chemical element and discover the > same facts about it, so we admit the star or chemical > element as something that is part of reality. > > Likewise, two mathematicians, maybe in different times or places, perhaps > even alien mathematicians in a different galaxy (or even > universe) could discover the same properties of the same numbers. They would > compute the same value for Pi, they would agree Pis is > between 3 and 4. > > So when there is objective agreement between two subjects, why then do we > admit the chemical element as part of reality but not these > other objects which we can also objectively study? If you mean math, it is just have the properties of the physical world is thought about by the beings. Without the beings, that languages and its truth values, lose all meaning. Only matter is left. > > > >? ? ? ?> I have heard people argue for ultrafinitism before, but I > think it leads to inconsistencies. Most things we > have proven > >? ? ? ?in > >? ? ? ?> mathematics would be false, if there were not infinite > numbers. > >? ? ? ?> For example, the proof that there are infinite primes would > be false, under ultrafinitism. If Pi's digits do > not go on > >? ? ? ?forever, then > >? ? ? ?> e^(2Pi*i) would not equal 1, but some other number. If it is > not 1, then all of mathematics breaks down due to > the > >? ? ? ?principle of > >? ? ? ?> explosion > (see:?https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#The_Foundational_Crisis > ) > > > >? ? ? ?I don't see how that would follow from my position. > > > > Mathematical truths must be constant and observer independent. If > they change over time, based on what we have done, > e.g., if there > > were 174626847 factors of zero yesterday and 174626848 today, then > you could prove two mutually inconsistent things > which leads to > > the principle of explosion. > > Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has meaning > when being interpreted by human consciousness. > > You could say the same thing about matter, could you not? Yes, if everything is doubted, of course. But as Wigner said, matter is the most practical way and assumption, that leads to massive benefits, so I don't see any reason why I should doubt matter. > > > Since math tries to > describe aspects of nature in human form, > > Is it uniquely human, or could aliens discover the same mathematical truths > as we have discovered (despite them using different > notation)? Sorry my mistake. Consciousness. I am certain if we meet aliens, they will have math. And yes, since they are attempting to describe the same world of matter, their math will correspond with our math, unless they are better observers and develop the tool/language further. > > it will follow that every time > we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool, > > > But as Godel showed, there is no final (or finite) set of rules that accounts > for all mathematical truth. We must constantly strive > to develop ever more powerful theories of mathematical objects, just as > physicists must always strive to develop better more powerful > theories in physics. This again, suggests to me, that mathematical truth is > not a human invention but something infinite and beyond > ourselves. It is something we study, much like we study the physical world. Well, based on my opinions above, I do not share that point of view. I believe it is an invention only meaningful when interpreted by consciousness. > > > the > constants will hold. > > > > > > > >? ? ? ?They only exist when we interpret > >? ? ? ?them. > > > > This seems like idealism, only applied to? mathematical objects. If > all the mathematicians go to sleep at the same > time, does the > > ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter stop being > 3.14259... ? > > In terms of human language and meaning yes. Those are only ideas in the > mind. Of course you can write down the ideas and how to use the > language. But the concepts are only meaningful to you, when thought > about. > > In terms of aspects in the world, that math tries to describe, no, > those > aspects still hold, assuming an external world of some kind. > > Would you say, similarly, that this universe did not exist before there were > any conscious observers within it? I would say that it did not meaningfully exist. > > > > >? ? ? ?This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have > happened > >? ? ? ?unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;) > > > > I feel we are writing a book together. ?? > > Oh yes! What should we call it? ;) Maybe it's time to sit down together > for a month or two and harvest the thread into a book? ;) > > > We've covered so much it is hard to say what the topic would be.? ?? > If there is any overriding theme, it is the tension between scientific > realism and "empirical confirmationism" if that phrase makes > sense. Yes, I agree. I think that is one fundamental tension. Also we touched on identity and idealism vs materialism. Maybe a good title would be "How not to do philosophy"? ;) Best regards, Daniel From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 22 13:04:44 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 06:04:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009801d9ed55$5be0ea10$13a2be30$@rainier66.com> Rafal! Welcome back! Regarding cryonics, may it be so! spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand?. Ignemus lucem aeternam! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 13:23:10 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:23:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] Re: self explanatory bill w In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stuart's post reminds me of a little book from way back: The One Minute Manager. Worth a few bucks: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=two+minute+manager&crid=HBS9T2Z0OWR0&sprefix=two+minute+manager%2Caps%2C143&ref=nb_sb_noss_1 (new version) bill w On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:30?PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > This reminds me of the following quote by Frank Herbert. > > "The difference between a good administrator and a bad one is about five > heartbeats. Good administrators make immediate choices. They usually can be > made to work. A bad administrator, on the other hand, hesitates, diddles > around, asks for committees, for research and reports. Eventually, he acts > in ways which create serious problems. [?] ?A bad administrator is more > concerned with reports than with decisions. He wants the hard record which > he can display as an excuse for his errors. [?] Oh, they depend on verbal > orders. They never lie about what they?ve done if their verbal orders cause > problems, and they surround themselves with people able to act wisely on > the basis of verbal orders. Often, the most important piece of information > is that something has gone wrong. Bad administrators hide their mistakes > until it?s too late to make corrections." > > Stuart LaForge > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 9:10:37?AM UTC-7 fooz... at gmail.com > wrote: > >> Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "extropolis" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/b8e8910a-7504-448d-b591-43c4e1f22dfcn%40googlegroups.com > > . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 22 15:16:04 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 17:16:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <56761280-d9fd-3b68-ba48-3a17c2be0b88@swisscows.email> Haha, good one! Just imagine where the lowly IT/Philosopher is on that list. ;) As for the quote, I think it actually was quoted by me, but was written by another person in a cross-mailinglist answer. We would have to go through the paperwork to find out the correct person. Best regards, Daniel On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:35?PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven.? Jason > > > Just a note of clarification: the text you quoted was written by "efc / Daniel", not me. > > > > First, if by 'confirm' you mean true, then you have left statistics and gone into metaphysics.? Second - 'prove' means 'to > test', so both 'prove true' and 'prove false' are possibilities > Third - if you have some theories that lead to accurate predictions given margins of error it doesn't matter if the reliability > is not perfect (since it never will be).? Is it true? Who knows.? It?works. > > I remember one chemistry teacher telling me that he ran a student lab test reaction three times and got three different > results, all of which were different from what the lab text said.? ?bill w > > > Reminds me of this joke:?https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck/mathphyseng.html > > A mathematician, physicist, and engineer are taking a math test. One question asks "Are all odd numbers prime?" > > The mathematician thinks, "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- nope, not all odd numbers are prime." > > The physicist thinks, " 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- that could be experimental error -- 11 is > prime, 13 is prime, yes, they're all prime." > > The engineer thinks, " 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime, ..." > > > Jason > > ? > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:56?PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > Good evening Jason, > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?That is quite a big "if" in my world. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we have for it. I have put together a > list of > >? ? ? ?confirming evidence > >? ? ? ?> here: > >? ? ? ?> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence > > > >? ? ? ?Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any > >? ? ? ?verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and > >? ? ? ?I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to > >? ? ? ?test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm > >? ? ? ?or deny them. > > > > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a theory which we can verify with our > senses or observations > > (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus). > > > > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but each successful prediction a theory > makes, increases our > > confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation would falsify the > theory. > > > > Agree so far? > > Yes. > > > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a priori, by ensemble theories that use > algorithmic information > > theory: > > > > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws > > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature > > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in time > > > > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe with no apparent beginning, or with laws > that aren't > > probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described. > > > > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms these predictions. It's no different than > devising a theory of > > gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that inverse square law of > gravitational attraction. > > > > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not empirical. > > Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. > It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that > by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, > its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by > definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this > world. > > There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that > difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather > uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see > how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will > change its mind, and so would I. > > I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will > change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the > finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;) > > >? ? ? ?I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are > >? ? ? ?theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit > >? ? ? ?experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof. > > > >? ? ? ?Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd > >? ? ? ?rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump > >? ? ? ?in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some > >? ? ? ?writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified. > > > > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most accurate prediction in physics (so far > confirmed to 8 decimal > > places). > > Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI, > superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories > that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are > still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them. > > As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to > be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that > they are currently anything else but theories. > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is right. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a trillion odds) > >? ? ? ?> Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after you found yourself surviving 40 > iterations? > > > >? ? ? ?No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an > >? ? ? ?extremely lucky guy. ;) > > > > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening: > > > > 1. You are very lucky > > 2. The game is rigged > > > > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row. > > > > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in your assessment? > > Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does > increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick > apart the game. > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death do not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no information > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read (religious > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?relatives aside). > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities?of things occurring outside this world? > > > >? ? ? ?Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude > >? ? ? ?contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof > >? ? ? ?related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert > >? ? ? ?landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of > >? ? ? ?interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this > >? ? ? ?world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and > >? ? ? ?philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage, > >? ? ? ?but that does not mean I believe in them. > > > > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If in the future you are given a choice to > receive a neural > > prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind because you are > agnostic on a theory of > > consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information? > > Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me > remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and > the outcome related to acting or not acting. > > When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable > being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength > in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to > criticize myself. > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this is the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most likely > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize it 100%. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer running some program for which we > don't know whether > >? ? ? ?or not it > >? ? ? ?> will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical problem how much power this computer > will ultimately > >? ? ? ?draw. But this > >? ? ? ?> physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and there will always remain problems > for which > >? ? ? ?currently known > >? ? ? ?> mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs. > > > >? ? ? ?I agree. > > > >? ? ? ?> But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our best to expand physics and > ontology, to expand > >? ? ? ?the scope of > >? ? ? ?> questions that are answerable. > > > >? ? ? ?I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons, > >? ? ? ?developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at > >? ? ? ?the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to > >? ? ? ?theories which cannot be proven. > > > > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the theory of gravity or evolution. > > I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way, > way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to > committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on > results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom. > > >? ? ? ?They are an important tool, they can > >? ? ? ?serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and > >? ? ? ?will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained. > > > > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be obtained. We could be in a dream world or > simulation where > > nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some theories are far more > likely to be correct than > > others. > > What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing > proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)? > > I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it. > > As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others > (pink unicorns). > > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in our > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can do to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?escape their medium of existence by themselves. > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> You are defining their existence in terms of their material construction. If we, however, relax this > constraint, and > >? ? ? ?say any > >? ? ? ?> identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and the material substrate is > unimportant) then > >? ? ? ?external simulation > > > >? ? ? ?I do, since we live in a material universe. > > > > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God? > > Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far, > then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic > reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I > exist, and that we do live in a material universe. > > But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything, > including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we > end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so > I think I'll refrain from going there. ;) > > >? ? ? ?Therefore I do not think it > >? ? ? ?makes sense to relax this constraint. > > > > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, (which is perhaps the least-settled > subject in science today.) > > Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position. > > I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other > discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some > sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position > that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around > mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =) > > >? ? ? ?Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that > >? ? ? ?in our other thread about ID and consciousness. > > > > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my opinion. > > Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory. > > >? ? ? ?> What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are > the causes > >? ? ? ?entirely > >? ? ? ?> physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or can happen in this universe? > > > >? ? ? ?I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns > >? ? ? ?and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical > >? ? ? ?concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas. > > > > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism. > > > > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It transcends us, and any attempt to define it. > > > > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the source of mathematical truth. No matter > what mathematical > > system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, where does truth > come from, if not us or > > our axiomatic systems? > > When something corresponds with a state in the world? I'm no expert, but > I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we > interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the > concept is meaningless. > > > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes: > > > > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems to disprove the view that mathematics > is only our own > > creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they can?t have any others > except those he has > > given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least something in > them) exist > > objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or > other of Platonism > > or ?realism? as to the mathematical objects." > > Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the > creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not > convinced by his line of reasoning. > > >? ? ? ?Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness. > >? ? ? ?It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that > >? ? ? ?individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I > >? ? ? ?do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;) > > > > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything. > > Very true. ;) > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > Jason? > > > > > >? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?Daniel > > > > > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> Jason? > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Best regards, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> Jason > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat > >? ? ? ? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?wrote: > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Hello Stuart, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of > cutting > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? edge physics. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? You say that > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax > because you are > >? ? ? ?already > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?immortal. You > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?don't need to > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not > infinite > >? ? ? ?numbers of, > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?you > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?strewn about > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? multiverse. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses > supported by > >? ? ? ?proof or > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?is itone > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?of many > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?interpretations of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? current theories? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that > the probability > >? ? ? ?there's > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?only > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?one > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?universe > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?(with one kind of > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?This is as close to proof as anything science can provide. > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jason? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Best regards, Daniel > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? Stuart LaForge > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This is a crucial point, for those of us interested > in uploading, > >? ? ? ?so I > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?think we > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?should > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?really > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would > you please > >? ? ? ?explain > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?further? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Could you also please explain the comment about > continuity and > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not-discontinuity > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?not > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?being > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?the > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? same thing? > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ben > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? _______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?>? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?> > >? ? ? ?>_______________________________________________ > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat mailing list > >? ? ? ?extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >? ? ? ?http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 15:54:58 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:54:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "What is wrong with those people?" That's one way of putting it, the other is what is strange about the few thousand who are signed up. At one time, I was a large influence who signed up (after the Dora Kent debacle). It was probably because they were involved with space and high tech more than knowing me. When I signed up it was around one in a million. There is a darn good reason to want larger cryonics organizations, economy of scale. Wikipedia numbers are interesting. Out of around a million living people listed, there are 69 transhumanists and 41 cryonicists. I know that is low because I know that some are confidential signups. But even among the Extropians, and Transhumanists not all are signed up. I don't think Spike or Hans Moravec are. A substantial number of the early posters on this list are (or in some cases were) signed up. But there are people who wanted it, but for one reason or another (finance mostly) did not. If you buy into evolutionary psychology as a worldview, humans have not been selected for signing up or living a very long time. It's a tiny corner of the human population that is attracted. And frankly, the rapid runup to the singularity is disorienting even for people who have been involved for a long time. I won't say I envy my parents (both long dead) but I do understand them. Finding aliens (if that is what we are seeing around Tabby's star) might induce a few more to sign up. If Ray Kurzweil is right, and people quit dying around 2030, then the long-term population will have a considerable number of people from this era. It's been a topic of serious concern for just about as long as I have been involved (1985). I know Alcor has interviewed new members about what induced them to sign up, but I have not seen those results. Keith On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:55?PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. > > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. > > What the holy fuck? > > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. > > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. > > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. > > Ignemus lucem aeternam! > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From gadersd at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 17:36:41 2023 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Gadersd) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:36:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the population. > On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. > > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. > > What the holy fuck? > > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. > > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. > > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. > > Ignemus lucem aeternam! > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 20:11:51 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:11:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For some odd reason, this was blocked. The response from the remote server was: 541 5.7.1 Intrusion attempt denied from 209.85.161.42 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Keith Henson Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:47?PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam To: ExI chat list Cc: , Gadersd On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:38?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat wrote: > > > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the population. I can't cite statistics, but I don't think many of those signed up are religious. Religions sort of provide a patch for knowledge of mortality. Cryonics does that in a different and perhaps more rational way. Keith > > On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. > > > > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. > > > > What the holy fuck? > > > > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. > > > > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > > > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. > > > > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. > > > > Ignemus lucem aeternam! > > > > Rafal > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 22 20:31:53 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 22:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This happens to me too. The advice is to resend your message if you encounter this error. As for the reason, I have no idea. Maybe some incorrectly configured mail server? It is a bit annoying though. Best regards, Daniel On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > For some odd reason, this was blocked. The response from the remote server was: > > 541 5.7.1 Intrusion attempt denied from 209.85.161.42 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Keith Henson > Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:47?PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam > To: ExI chat list > Cc: , Gadersd > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:38?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? >> >> Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the population. > > I can't cite statistics, but I don't think many of those signed up are > religious. Religions sort of provide a patch for knowledge of > mortality. Cryonics does that in a different and perhaps more > rational way. > > Keith > >> > On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >> > >> > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. >> > >> > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. >> > >> > What the holy fuck? >> > >> > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. >> > >> > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? >> > >> > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. >> > >> > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. >> > >> > Ignemus lucem aeternam! >> > >> > Rafal >> > _______________________________________________ >> > extropy-chat mailing list >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 20:39:15 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:39:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? Keith On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:33?PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > This happens to me too. The advice is to resend your message if you > encounter this error. > > As for the reason, I have no idea. Maybe some incorrectly configured mail > server? It is a bit annoying though. > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > > For some odd reason, this was blocked. The response from the remote server was: > > > > 541 5.7.1 Intrusion attempt denied from 209.85.161.42 > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > From: Keith Henson > > Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:47?PM > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam > > To: ExI chat list > > Cc: , Gadersd > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:38?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat > > wrote: > >> > >> > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > >> > >> Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the population. > > > > I can't cite statistics, but I don't think many of those signed up are > > religious. Religions sort of provide a patch for knowledge of > > mortality. Cryonics does that in a different and perhaps more > > rational way. > > > > Keith > > > >> > On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > >> > > >> > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. > >> > > >> > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. > >> > > >> > What the holy fuck? > >> > > >> > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. > >> > > >> > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > >> > > >> > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. > >> > > >> > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. > >> > > >> > Ignemus lucem aeternam! > >> > > >> > Rafal > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > extropy-chat mailing list > >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From gsantostasi at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 20:42:31 2023 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:42:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When I live there are at least 3 Morticians businesses. I hate them to the core. They capitalize on death. I always think, when I take my walks, how interesting if all these morticians' businesses converted to cryonics in an imaginary world where cryonics was accepted as a matter of course. Most people care about life and also what happens after life. It is just that we were fed this fairy tale of a spiritual afterlife for millions of years, basically since we started to be aware, we always come up with ways to escape death even if just in our imagination. Most religions are all about defeating death in one way or another (again in imaginary ways). It is all that we could do until a few decades ago. Now we have a scientifically valid way, even if the odds are still small they are not zero and it should be better than being eaten by worms or being burnt to ashes. But people are ignorant or turn off for some reason I cannot understand given the alternatives are much more grotesque. The economics of cryonics would be taken care if even if a small % would consider it a valid option. It is strange the numbers are so small because even the strangest hobbies or interests have for sure higher numbers. Given the importance of the matter, I'm so shocked so few people sign up. It is also baffling that the super-wealthy are not more into cryonics. Something is happening at the mental space level that I don't quite understand. Giovanni On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:55?PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state > of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of > 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. > Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. > > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to > avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to > all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 > intends to use it. > > What the holy fuck? > > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there > will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. > Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle > AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite > self-propagating thought substate. > > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna > die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass > insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who > make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery > starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They > will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. > > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. > > Ignemus lucem aeternam! > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 20:43:08 2023 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:43:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Keith, I'm of course. Giovanni On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:41?PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? > > > Keith > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:33?PM efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > This happens to me too. The advice is to resend your message if you > > encounter this error. > > > > As for the reason, I have no idea. Maybe some incorrectly configured mail > > server? It is a bit annoying though. > > > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > For some odd reason, this was blocked. The response from the remote > server was: > > > > > > 541 5.7.1 Intrusion attempt denied from 209.85.161.42 > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > From: Keith Henson > > > Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:47?PM > > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam > > > To: ExI chat list > > > Cc: , Gadersd > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:38?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just > gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The > mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > >> > > >> Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. > It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long > life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the > population. > > > > > > I can't cite statistics, but I don't think many of those signed up are > > > religious. Religions sort of provide a patch for knowledge of > > > mortality. Cryonics does that in a different and perhaps more > > > rational way. > > > > > > Keith > > > > > >> > On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on > the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic > - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed > up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. > > >> > > > >> > Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible > way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily > available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 > person in 100,000 intends to use it. > > >> > > > >> > What the holy fuck? > > >> > > > >> > One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future > and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as > galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck > scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy > driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. > > >> > > > >> > Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just > gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The > mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? > > >> > > > >> > David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. > Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in > fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. > They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. > > >> > > > >> > I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. > > >> > > > >> > Ignemus lucem aeternam! > > >> > > > >> > Rafal > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > extropy-chat mailing list > > >> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> extropy-chat mailing list > > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat_______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Sep 22 21:23:54 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 14:23:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018101d9ed9b$17e04db0$47a0e910$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat >...... But even among the Extropians, and Transhumanists not all are signed up. I don't think Spike or Hans Moravec are... Keith Keith you are far too kind to mention my name in the same sentence with Moravec. Tis true however. Fatherhood definitely pushed that way down on my list of priorities. At some point I may talk to my son about it and if he is willing, sign up him first, my bride second, then me. spike From gadersd at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 21:38:10 2023 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Gadersd) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 17:38:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? I haven?t signed up because I don?t think I?ll need it. With the singularity on the horizon I think biological immortality, if not uploading, will be available within my natural lifetime (assuming AI doesn?t wipe us out first). > On Sep 22, 2023, at 4:39 PM, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? > > > Keith > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:33?PM efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> This happens to me too. The advice is to resend your message if you >> encounter this error. >> >> As for the reason, I have no idea. Maybe some incorrectly configured mail >> server? It is a bit annoying though. >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >> >>> For some odd reason, this was blocked. The response from the remote server was: >>> >>> 541 5.7.1 Intrusion attempt denied from 209.85.161.42 >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Keith Henson >>> Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:47?PM >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam >>> To: ExI chat list >>> Cc: , Gadersd >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:38?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? >>>> >>>> Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the population. >>> >>> I can't cite statistics, but I don't think many of those signed up are >>> religious. Religions sort of provide a patch for knowledge of >>> mortality. Cryonics does that in a different and perhaps more >>> rational way. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>>>> On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. >>>>> >>>>> Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. >>>>> >>>>> What the holy fuck? >>>>> >>>>> One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. >>>>> >>>>> Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? >>>>> >>>>> David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. >>>>> >>>>> Ignemus lucem aeternam! >>>>> >>>>> Rafal >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat_______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 22 21:49:26 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 23:49:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5674acf6-3708-51d7-7375-67e4c39f5674@swisscows.email> I'm not. I don't live in the US and I also don't feel any need for it. Best regards, Daniel On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Keith Henson wrote: > I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? > > > Keith > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:33?PM efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> This happens to me too. The advice is to resend your message if you >> encounter this error. >> >> As for the reason, I have no idea. Maybe some incorrectly configured mail >> server? It is a bit annoying though. >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >> >>> For some odd reason, this was blocked. The response from the remote server was: >>> >>> 541 5.7.1 Intrusion attempt denied from 209.85.161.42 >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Keith Henson >>> Date: Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:47?PM >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam >>> To: ExI chat list >>> Cc: , Gadersd >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:38?AM Gadersd via extropy-chat >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? >>>> >>>> Many religions offers eternal life and many Americans are religious. It is sad that people ignore an actually realistic way to achieve long life, but rationality has never been a strong suit of the majority of the population. >>> >>> I can't cite statistics, but I don't think many of those signed up are >>> religious. Religions sort of provide a patch for knowledge of >>> mortality. Cryonics does that in a different and perhaps more >>> rational way. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>>>> On Sep 22, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In between vegging out on YouTube today I was idly cogitating on the state of cryonics in the US and I was struck by the following statistic - out of 3x10e8 Americans there may be around 3 - 4 thousand who are signed up. Let's say that's one in a hundred thousand. >>>>> >>>>> Let that sink in - cryonics is a highly scientifically plausible way to avoid dying for a really, really long time, which is easily available to all but the poorest of the poor Americans and yet only 1 person in 100,000 intends to use it. >>>>> >>>>> What the holy fuck? >>>>> >>>>> One person in a hundred thousand wants to live to see the future and there will be a lot to see in the future. Telescopes as large as galaxies. Quasars remade into particle accelerators to probe the Planck scale. Oracle AIs whose thoughts will span billions of years. Negentropy driven infinite self-propagating thought substate. >>>>> >>>>> Ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine say "Nah, we're just gonna die. It sounds like a good idea. Eternal life? Hell, fuck no!". The mass insanity! The death cult!. What is wrong with those people? >>>>> >>>>> David Deutsch says that every day is the beginning of infinity. Those who make it through the rapture of the nerds will rise to heavens in fiery starships. They will conquer the firmament and piss on alien planets. They will carry the eternal light of thought into the lifeless void. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is the greatest idea since sliced bread. Life is good. >>>>> >>>>> Ignemus lucem aeternam! >>>>> >>>>> Rafal >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat_______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From lostmyelectron at protonmail.com Fri Sep 22 22:01:48 2023 From: lostmyelectron at protonmail.com (Gabe Waggoner) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 22:01:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23E98FDB-E44F-4E2D-AFA2-01FE2770B776@protonmail.com> On Sep 22, 2023, at 17:38, Gadersd via extropy-chat wrote: > I haven?t signed up because I don?t think I?ll need it. With the singularity on the horizon I think biological immortality, if not uploading, will be available within my natural lifetime (assuming AI doesn?t wipe us out first). > >> On Sep 22, 2023, at 4:39 PM, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? >> >> Keith I?m signed up, inspired partly by 3001: The Final Odyssey and several other sci-fi tales. I tend to think of cryonics as my backup for the singularity. I wonder what would happen if I can upload my consciousness and then my body is later cryopreserved and revived. It could be an Admiral vs. Captain Janeway situation. Good times. Gabe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 02:31:22 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:31:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] resume Message-ID: It occurred to me that I have an item to add to my resume: I am a former world's youngest person. (from Reader's Digest) Is that literally true? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 03:22:45 2023 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 23:22:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: <018101d9ed9b$17e04db0$47a0e910$@rainier66.com> References: <018101d9ed9b$17e04db0$47a0e910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:24?PM wrote: > > Tis true however. Fatherhood definitely pushed that way down on my list > of priorities. At some point I may talk to my son about it and if he is > willing, sign up him first, my bride second, then me. > > ### My older daughter Nymeria asked me to sign her up when she was nine years old. Her mother must have ridiculed me in front of her, judging from some remarks Nymeria made between age 6 and 9 but whenever Nymeria mentioned cryonics I was ready to explain my thinking in detail. Finally she was ready and she asked me to sign her up. Then a few weeks later she asked me again, so I knew it was serious. Before agreeing to have her signed up her mother requested that Nymeria produce a written document explaining why she wants to be a cryonicist. Here is what the nine-year old girl wrote, without any help, direction or prompting from me: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xk8pOgLJKzDMD9ewY6LLG1g1XSq1VDFV/view?usp=sharing "I will survive in the future" - even now 9 years later this brings me tears of joy and pride. Of the two or three thousand people I talked to about me being a cryonicist she is the only one who converted to the faith. Was it because, Jesuit style, I got her while young? Or maybe she inherited my willingness to resist social pressure? Dunno. A close friend whom I love like a brother recently remarked that my cryonics necklace looks weird and I should hide it. I have two titanium dogtags with the cryonics directions, one of them offering a reward (in biggest font possible "REWARD $1000") for the person who contacts Alcor if I am found dead or unconscious, on a bright orange lanyard and with bright orange silicone rims, rather conspicuous and hard to miss. Of course I want every first responder to immediately notice the tags, so my chance of successful suspension would be higher. I always have the tags on and usually prominently visible rather than tucked under layers of clothing, even at work at the hospital. I told my friend (in a friendly way) "I am not ashamed of my faith". He says he will sign up one day but he procrastinates. I am willing to share the Good News. I proselytize, in a gentle way. I smile at the pushback I get from people. I am OK with being seen as a bit weird if I can spread the newest gospel, ??????? ?????????, and save a few souls from self-inflicted death. Spike, how about instead of talking to your son about cryonics, you just sign up and lead by example? Become a convert and rejoice in the true faith? Because, yes, cryonics is the True Faith, bolstered by scientific data, the whole edifice of the predictive model of reality that bears a spiritual fruit, the justified hope. As you notice, I am freely using religious metaphors and verbiage here, even though I am an atheist. It is by design, because cryonics is the one product of science that can legitimately fill the god-shaped hole in the human mind that opens as you notice your mortality, this time not with wishes and confusion but with hard data and sound arguments. So sign up, good folks, pay the insurance tithe and open the garden of the future. The galaxy awaits! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 03:38:23 2023 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 23:38:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Ignemus lucem aeternam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:40?PM Gadersd via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I am curious. How many of you are signed up for cryonics? > > I haven?t signed up because I don?t think I?ll need it. With the > singularity on the horizon I think biological immortality, if not > uploading, will be available within my natural lifetime (assuming AI > doesn?t wipe us out first). ### Yes, I think you are right that most of us who are not ridiculously old will have a chance at post-singularity life extension within our expected lifespan but then, prediction is hard, especially about the future. What if you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer? What if you are diagnosed with ALS, like Hal Finney was? Hal was signed up and he will hopefully come back one day because his suspension was of really good quality. His bitcoin will be worth trillions of dollars by then. But if you are not already signed up it may be difficult to do it when you suddenly see your end coming a lot sooner than expected. And of course, sudden cardiac death kills about 9% of us, which is the true death if not signed up. And what if they manage to suppress AI progress and put the society in stasis for a long time? Signing up is so easy when you are doing well. Go to the website and start today. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 23 04:24:15 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:24:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] there is? Message-ID: <001901d9edd5$d05022f0$70f068d0$@rainier66.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 33952 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 23 04:32:32 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:32:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] we knew this was coming... Message-ID: <000601d9edd6$f8a69030$e9f3b090$@rainier66.com> https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/09/pentagon-creating-robot-language-so -drones-can-communicate-without-humans/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 04:37:46 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 21:37:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] we knew this was coming... In-Reply-To: <000601d9edd6$f8a69030$e9f3b090$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d9edd6$f8a69030$e9f3b090$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 9:34?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/09/pentagon-creating-robot-language-so-drones-can-communicate-without-humans/ > https://xkcd.com/927/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gadersd at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 14:28:56 2023 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Gadersd) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 10:28:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] there is? In-Reply-To: <001901d9edd5$d05022f0$70f068d0$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d9edd5$d05022f0$70f068d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <733A6E05-8B32-4EB1-8622-088D549F382D@gmail.com> Everyone knows mathematicians love curves. > On Sep 23, 2023, at 12:24 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 18:33:06 2023 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 20:33:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Anyone in downtown San Francisco 13-17 october? Message-ID: I have been invited to speak at the ISAP meeting 13 oct. Subject is pharmacological simulation in clinical practice. To my own somewhat large suprise I must say. I know my anaesthesia department is doing good on the frontline of hi-tech but I am very surprised that knowledge about this has spread to the US. I will stay in SF over the ASA conference (13-17 oct), ISAP is a precursor meeting to the big ASA. Are there any transhumanist, L5 or extropian activities going on? Henrik ?hrstr?m -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Sep 24 13:04:29 2023 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 06:04:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] resume In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ef1edfa3fa6149ff52aae2d1ed902c8@sollegro.com> On 2023-09-22 19:31, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > It occurred to me that I have an item to add to my resume: > > I am a former world's youngest person. > > (from Reader's Digest) > > Is that literally true? bill w Ironically, this is only true if you are old enough to have been the only baby born at the moment of your birth based on the world's population at the time. These days, four babies are born every second, so the newborns are in a 4-way tie for world's youngest person. Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Sun Sep 24 13:56:30 2023 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 06:56:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] there is? In-Reply-To: <001901d9edd5$d05022f0$70f068d0$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d9edd5$d05022f0$70f068d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <5ba084fde63d1903758d0cc158f14710@sollegro.com> Whoa. Those equations would be sufficient to give a particle physicist a hadron. Stuart LaForge On 2023-09-22 21:24, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 15:22:58 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 08:22:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] resume In-Reply-To: <8ef1edfa3fa6149ff52aae2d1ed902c8@sollegro.com> References: <8ef1edfa3fa6149ff52aae2d1ed902c8@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 6:06?AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 2023-09-22 19:31, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > It occurred to me that I have an item to add to my resume: > > > > I am a former world's youngest person. > > > > (from Reader's Digest) > > > > Is that literally true? bill w > > Ironically, this is only true if you are old enough to have been the > only baby born at the moment of your birth based on the world's > population at the time. These days, four babies are born every second, > so the newborns are in a 4-way tie for world's youngest person. > Only if you round to the second. Milliseconds exist, though the exact millisecond of birth might be hard to measure. (Then again, even the exact second can be debatable.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 15:31:46 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 10:31:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] resume In-Reply-To: <8ef1edfa3fa6149ff52aae2d1ed902c8@sollegro.com> References: <8ef1edfa3fa6149ff52aae2d1ed902c8@sollegro.com> Message-ID: Well Stuart, nothing is ever absolutely identical. We may have to use nano seconds to separate two babies born at the 'same' time. bill w On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 8:06?AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 2023-09-22 19:31, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > It occurred to me that I have an item to add to my resume: > > > > I am a former world's youngest person. > > > > (from Reader's Digest) > > > > Is that literally true? bill w > > Ironically, this is only true if you are old enough to have been the > only baby born at the moment of your birth based on the world's > population at the time. These days, four babies are born every second, > so the newborns are in a 4-way tie for world's youngest person. > > Stuart LaForge > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 19:10:10 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 20:10:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Tesla Optimus robot new video Message-ID: Optimus has new capabilities and balance. 1 min 20 sec. Tesla's humanoid robot, Optimus can now sort objects autonomously. (and correct tipped over objects!) Switch on subtitles for descriptions. Now, how long until we see Optimus police and soldiers? BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 19:40:46 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 14:40:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <56761280-d9fd-3b68-ba48-3a17c2be0b88@swisscows.email> References: <83c7f4c8-7b76-c937-7b4e-02dbf833fa87@swisscows.email> <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <56761280-d9fd-3b68-ba48-3a17c2be0b88@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:17?AM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Haha, good one! Just imagine where the lowly IT/Philosopher is on that > list. ;) > ?? > > As for the quote, I think it actually was quoted by me, but was written by > another person in a cross-mailinglist answer. We would have to go through > the paperwork to find out the correct person. > > It appears that it was something you said in an e-mail from you from 12 days ago (Sept 12) in this same thread. The following is the full quote/context: "Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this world. There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will change its mind, and so would I. I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;)" I apologize for attributing this quote to you if this was not something you wrote. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Sep 24 21:52:39 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:52:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: <08cb7ed2-3c84-f68a-ee15-856038aa9dcb@swisscows.email> References: <08cb7ed2-3c84-f68a-ee15-856038aa9dcb@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:44?AM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Ergo... choose your wife with care! ;) > Good advice. > > > Then I don't think our positions are too far off. I don't ask for any > belief > > or acceptance of some idea as some final truth. Rather, > > I see all ideas as having some probability/confidence we might ascribe > to > > them. And even in such cases when an idea happens to be > > true we can never know it is true. > > Yes, it does seem like we're not that far apart. One difference is our > subjective probabilities, and the other is the realism/anti-realism > aspect, although, I don't have a fixed position and am somewhere between > the two anti-realism positions. Probably an interesting topic for > another thread to try and decide on a position there. =) > Isn't anti-realism a kind of idealism? And previously you seemed to have a strong objection to idealism. > > > > I think a nice way to think about theories (especially if one comes from > a > > computing background) is to think of them as functions. > > A prediction then, is equivalent to evaluating a function for some > situation > > x: y = F(x). > > Then "y", the output of the function, is what we might call that > function's > > "prediction". > > The only thing we have assumed (or postulated) here is the validity of > F() > > for the situation x. > > Well, if we decouple it from the real world, and treat it as a function > (pure mathematics) then yes, I think that's valid. If a part of the > function is verification, then sometimes the function in this reality > doesn't compute. Or do I misunderstand you? > I am not sure how to parse that exactly, but I will try to restate it in another way. We assume theories and their validity for certain domains. A theory is a mathematical abstraction, not unlike a particular function in mathematics. We test theories by using them to make predictions (but plugging an input 'x' into the function, and seeing it's output 'y', which is what that theory says we should see), and then we make an observation of reality and compare that observation O with the prediction y. If they disagree, either there was some experimental error, or the theory is invalid. If they agree, then the theory has passed a test, and we can increase our confidence in the validity of the theory. We can always compute the function for any given "x" value to get a prediction. However, not all x values are practical or possible to test. For instance, testing whether a 1-ton diamond falls with the same acceleration predicted by the theory. Or testing whether antimatter falls. It is too difficult/expensive to gather enough antimatter and contain it reliably, to perform this "drop test." In other cases, the "y" is an observation we are unable to make, so we cannot compare the prediction of a theory to reality. For example, observing the insides of black holes (and making it back out again to report what was seen), or observing the electron go through the other slit (that the person in the other branch would have seen). Any theory you might imagine, even something universally accepted like "F = ma" will have limitations on our ability to test (for example, testing this theory for masses greater than the mass of the observable universe is impossible in principle), and it remains uncertain whether this function has any validity for negative or imaginary masses . So this is why I don't find it especially troubling when a theory has portions of its domain or range that are unverifiable. As long as there are portions of its range that do intersect with observable reality, then we can establish some confidence in the validity of the theory (even though there may always remain an infinite number of untested or untestable predictions of that theory). > > > Consider the plight of a brilliant fish scientist confined to a small > pond. > > This fish scientist observes rocks fall, and bubbles > > rise, he also makes precise measurements of the surface of the water on > the > > pond and finds it to be curved ever so slightly, as if it > > is a partial surface of a sphere. The brilliant fish scientist then > develops > > a theory of gravity, based on the idea that everything > > is pulled towards some unseen center. The fish scientist drops two rocks > on > > opposite sides of the pond, and finds their paths are not > > completely parallel, a further confirmation of this theory that > everything is > > pulled towards a center. Furthermore, the difference in > > angle aligns with the curvature of the pond's surface, adding further > > credence to his theory (the direction rocks fall is always 90 > > degrees from the angle of the pond's surface at the point the rock is > dropped > > from). > > The brilliant fish scientist then makes a bold prediction: he infers > that > > reality must be much larger than the small pond he is > > confined to: the curvature of the pond's surface suggests he lives on a > > sphere with a diameter of 40,000 kilometers. The fellow fish, > > however, think he is a bit silly for making such a prediction. Though > the > > fellow fish accept his theory of gravity and the > > measurements of the pond surface's curvature, they think it is > unwarranted to > > discuss anything that neither he nor they could ever > > confirm. The fish scientist argues, if his theory is true, it explains > > everything: why rocks dropped from different points don't fall > > in a parallel direction, why the pond's surface is not completely flat, > but > > curved, and why rocks fall and bubbles rise. Yes, it > > implies the existence of things we can't directly see, but such unseen > things > > are necessary for his theory to work at all (things > > would fall over, or collapse inward, if there wasn't already something > > underneath us and to the side of us). > > > > I think this is where we are. Our best theories necessarily include > things > > beyond our capacity to see, because they are so powerful. > > Note that general relativity makes an analogous prediction regarding the > > curvature of space itself. We have used satellites to > > measure the curvature of space, and found its curvature to be less than > 0.4%. > > This implies (assuming general relativity) that space > > must go on at least 250X further than what we can see in every > direction. So > > that the volume of the space we can see is no more than > > 1 / 250^3 (or 1/17,576,000th) of what is out there. What do you say > about > > the reality of all this other space? It is implied by our > > theory (and by our measurement of the curvature of space). But we will > never > > be able to travel out beyond our present confines to see > > this other space. It is over the cosmological horizon. We are, like > those > > fish, trapped in our own local backwater. Even if a fish > > jumps out of the pond to try to see a little further, it still can't see > > beyond the horizon. > > I do agree, with the difference that the prediction is about our > space, which we theoretically could explore, as physical beings moving > through space. So my probability of belief does assign some value to it > and that value is higher than for predictions generating ideas outside > of our universe. > But those places beyond the horizon *are outside* our universe, because space is expanding faster than light, these places will forever be causally disconnected and isolated from our local observable universe. We can never affect them, nor they ever affect us. They are causally empty/impotent predictions of relativity. > > > > > > Can a true agnostic (who neither accepts or rejects any theory) even do > > physics? If you give a theory-agnostic physicist a physics > > problem to solve, how does he or she decide which theory to use to make > a > > prediction? If the theory-agnostic physicist chooses a > > particular theory to use to make a prediction, is that not a form of > > acceptance of the theory? It seems to me the true agnostic must > > refuse to take any action or make any prediction. > > I think that depends on what the agnostic believes the theory to be. If > it is a tool with the purpose of making predictions and navigating our > world, the agnostic can freely use any tools, since the tool is not the > world itself. It's just a thought construct that takes input and > generates output. But what motivates the agnostic to believe a theory will work, unless that theory describes something that is real? > If that output can be verfied, it is elevated to > something close to knowledge and stops being belief. Those theories do > yield extrapolations when they are interpreted in certain ways, that go > beyond our world, and the true agnostic ignores those extrapolations. HE > might engage in them in order to try and prove them, but if they are per > definition outside our world, I do not think he would waste his time and > let nobler creatures fight those battles. > > What is interesting though is the decision to ignore the "extra" for the > time being, or assign it some probability. But then the question is, if > it is meaningful to play with probabilities when it comes to things > outside our world or if that only risks trapping you in the theory. > I don't see any risk of becoming trapped in a theory. A theory we can accept as a tentative description of reality (which may be true or false). We can ask what a theory (which may be widely regarded as true) says about a larger reality (which we may or may not be in a position to see). At least, I see no reason we should not be able to ask these things of otherwise well-tested, well-accepted, well-confirmed, theories. General Relativity fits this category, and I see no reason we can't ask this theory what it says about the minimum size of the universe compared to our observable part of the universe. > > "Sometimes it's hard to agnostic", to paraphrase a famous line from a > country song. Hmm, or was it "Stay in your world"...? ;) > I can see that. > > > or 4, letting the equations do the talking without > > human interpretations. > > > > I don't think that's realistic. You can confine yourself entirely to the > > equations, but you still get numerical answers that tell you > > reality is bigger than what we see. > > For example regarding the mathematics of cosmic inflation. You could ask > at > > what time period t, does the math predict that inflation > > stops? > > The equations would provide you a strictly mathematical answer: never > > You could also ask for a numerical prediction for the number of big > bangs > > that inflation will produce once inflation is initiated. > > And again you get a numerical answer: infinite. > > Well, if it is not testable or verifiable, a restatement could be, if I > input this value in this equation I get this answer. But yes, I think it > is stretching it a bit. We are people and understand our world through > our senses, thoughts and language, so doing all the science and expect > us to not do anything with the result does seem a bit inhuman. > > > It's not that scientists woke up one day and wanted to find many > universes, > > it's that so many of our best theories directly imply > > them, from a simple reading of the math. A simple reading of relativity > (plus > > a measurement of the curvature of space) implies space > > is at least tens of millions of times greater than all of the trillions > upon > > trillions of cubic light years we can see. Our best > > theory for explaining the big bang suggests the process that generated > it > > continues forever, perpetually causing new big bangs for > > all time. The math of QM necessitates the introduction of parallel > histories, > > which interact with ours to cause interference effects > > which we see in everyday experiments. These extra histories are there, > in the > > equations (you can't apply the equations without > > including them). > > Well, I think we've been done this route before. > > > I would like to draw a line between what, within > > a theory, we can test and prove/disprove, and beyond that line, we > > statements of the theory we cannot currently (or never) test or > prove. > > I > > think the tools and concepts on each side of this line, should be > > treated differently. I do not, however, think that we should stop > > theorizing. I think the utility of these extrapolations is in > > inspiration and motivation, that makes us push further. I agree > that > > too > > much or too strict agnosticism could lead to us stopping to expand > the > > horizons. So I agree with some, but I would still like to uphold a > > difference of the content of theories between provable and > > extrapolation, but both have their value and their use. > > > > There are three categories of > > predictions: > https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg > > 1. Tested > > 2. Testable but not yet tested > > 3. Not testable > > #1 of course deserves our greatest credence, but I see no reason to > > distinguish credence between #2 and #3. > > I think 3 is definitely below 2, since it loses any grounding in the > world, and is of no use. I don't see utility as having any bearing on veracity. > The trick is to distinguish between 2 and 3 and > that is not always so clear, so that is why I am not prepared to dismiss > any interpretation of QM. What sounds impossible today might be possible > tomorrow, however, interpretations that end up as 3 will always be less > credible to me than 2. > The reason I see them as equally credible, is that their acceptance comes down entirely to one's confidence in the truth of the theory itself. > > By putting too much emphasis on 3 on the other hand, can distract us and > make us waste our time from other work which clearly falls into 1 and 2. > But, that assumes we can make that judgment. > > > Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban ? > > Ahh.. the language of spock? ;) .u'u (repentance) somehow I can see the > logicin that! > > > > > I think there are so many different subfields and specialties that > everything > > is quite fragmented and compartmentalized, such that > > even if one did discover a great unifying theory today, there's a good > chance > > it would be completely glossed over because no one else > > has the right combination of specialties to understand it, assuming that > they > > even heard about it and read it. Consider that there > > are over 10,000 scientific publications every day. How many can any > person > > read in a day? > > Sigh, how sad that would be. The truth having existed for decades or > centuries, and no one having the knowledge to understand it. > Yes.. > > > > > > > > No one knew why nature is quantum mechanical. It appeared one of > the > > most profound mysteries, it tormented many of the > > founders of > > > the theory. Wheeler spent his whole life trying in vain to > understand > > why it was this way. > > > > That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A > whole > > life!! > > > > Yes, he continued working well into his 80s. There's a great book which > > covers much of Wheeler's life, called Trespassing on > > Einstein's Lawn. > > > > "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling, > that > > when?in a decade, a century, or a millennium?we grasp > > it, we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How > > could we have been so stupid for so long?" > > -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?How Come the Quantum?? (1986) > > Wouldn't surprise me at all! > I think this is in fact the case. Elementary arithmetic can serve as a fundamental physical theory of everything: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Conclusions > > > > > "I have never been able to let go of questions like: How come existence? > How > > come the quantum?" > > -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam? > (1998) > > > > Note Wheeler was 87 in 1998. > > > > > > > And only very recently have a few researchers offered a > plausible > > answer. The one thing their explanations share in > > common is they > > > are ultimate ensemble-type theories (an infinite comprehensive > > reality where all possibilities exist). As it turns out, > > if you start > > > with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is > > quantum mechanical. > > > > But it is just an assumption? > > > > All theories are assumed. > > Very much true. But it is important not to lose sight of that fact I > think. > I agree. > > > > > And can the assumption ever be proven? > > > > Theories are never proven, at best they persist in states of being "not > yet > > refuted". But our confidence in theories increases as > > they survive more and more tests which have the capacity to refute them. > > And that could be another mega-thread about truth. Don't you think? =) > On "truth"? Perhaps. There would need to be some difference in opinion though, otherwise there wouldn't be much fuel for conversation. > > > Such theories touch on things outside our reality, but they also touch > on > > things inside our reality. For instance, they make > > predictions about things we can observe and test (e.g. predictions about > the > > nature of reality or properties of physical laws). It is > > for this reason that they are falsifiable (there are tests they can > undergo > > which have the capacity to refute them), and having > > passed such tests, we can have a non-zero confidence in them. > > Possibly, but definitely not the same level of confidence as what can be > proven. See above about the agnostics dilemma. > I agree, the #1 (tested predictions) will always have a higher confidence than #2 (untested) or #3 (untestable) predictions. A collection of #1 tested predictions bolsters a theory, and our confidence in a theory is what provides any ground for belief in #2 or #3. > > > Empirical evidence concerns what is observable. I would agree, that if > for > > example, there was a theory that made no observable > > predictions whatsoever, it would not be a scientific theory and would > not be > > worthy of our time to discuss. But this is not the case > > concerning any of these theories (QM, GR, Inflation, etc.) They all make > > predictions we can, and have, tested empirically. > > Yes, but as you say, the empirical is a non-problem. When > interpretations try and "cross over", that's when the fun starts. > I think we need an agreed upon definition for "interpretation". > > > Can you explain this part more fully, I don't understand. In both cases, > we > > exist in a time when it hasn't yet been tested. What then > > makes us more confident in the prediction? I don't see why the fact that > we > > could test it is of any relevance in the time before we > > test it. > > The difference is (and I think something got lost in the text, but I'm > not sure) that if theories make predictions about our world, they belong > to 1 and 2 above, and if they make predictions in category nr 3, they > are just idle speculation. Therefore confidence in theories that help us > navigate this world I think there is some confusion here. All theories concern and make predictions that can be tested, otherwise they wouldn't be scientific theories in the first place. But all (or almost all) theories, also make predictions about things that cannot be tested (for reasons of practicality or principle). I still see no reason one should have to hold a #2 prediction to be more likely to be true then a #3 prediction, when it's the same theory that predicts both. > can be higher than extrapolations and > interpretations about possible worlds we can never reach. > > > > I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM > equations, > > and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory. > > > > In that sense it could be called an interpretation (as it adds nothing > new to > > the theory that isn't already there). > > Maybe this is an additional point of confusion and difference? The > status of theory vs interpretation? > Let me make an attempt at definitions: 1. *Theory*: A framework (usually mathematical) for making predictions concerning future observations, given an initial starting state or configuration. 2. *Interpretation*: A particular way of understanding, explaining, or conceptualizing the underlying pure mathematics of a theory. Do these seem good to you? Do you have any suggested changes or improvements? > > > In the sense that I say it is not an interpretation, I do so in a > different > > sense, because it is just an acceptance that the > > underlying equations are true. To me, calling it an interpretation is > then a > > bit misleading, as we wouldn't call belief that "F = ma" > > an interpretation of momentum. > > To give you another example "In fact, the only claim made by this > interpretation is that there is no collapse of the wavefunction. There > is just a universal wavefunction that evolves unitarily. The rest is for > future physicists and philosophers to try to understand". > > ( > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/653331/how-real-are-the-worlds-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation > ) > > I tried to find the text where the author did not like the fact that it > is interpretation and not theory but couldn't find it. The quote above > kind of touches on the spirit of that text at least. > Yes, I think in that sense, neither CI, nor MWI are interpretations. They are, properly speaking, different theories. Where MW is the conventionally accepted math of existing QM, and Copenhagen is some other (not yet defined) mathematics that describes when/how the Shrodinger equation stops being followed. Then, the things that you might call "interpretations" would relate to things like "Is the wave function physically real or just some non-real mathematical abstraction". They are two different ways of interpreting the same equation, which have no mathematical difference, and are only different on account of the different language and words we surround those mathematical entities with. > > > It is also listed > > under interpretations, and to me, it seems like an interpretation > among > > many that theorize and try to explain how the qm equations work. > > > > The existence of many histories is predicted by the equations (it's not > the > > starting assumption). The parallel histories exist all > > the same in CI. CI just adds the assumption that all but one suddenly > > disappear when an observer looks at the system. Of course, this > > means that before any observers were born in this universe, both CI and > MW > > agree on the existence of many parallel histories. > > > > > > > > > > Well, here I agree based on how I understand CI vs MWI. If I > understand > > you correctly CI needs some adjustment of the equation right, > which MWI > > does not need? Please correct me here. So CI according to what I > said > > (or read) above, would perhaps move closer to becoming an > additional > > theory since it modifies or adjusts the equation? I'm on deep water > > here, so take it with a grain of salt. > > > > > > You're correct. CI needs to describe measurement. That is, what > qualifies as > > a measurement, and why does it lead to a deviation from > > Schrodinger's equation (as happens under it's hypothesized "collapse of > the > > wave function"). If fleshed out, this would be a > > different theory from QM without collapse. But as it is, even proponents > of > > CI disagree about when collapse happens. It used to be > > thought any measurement would do it, but the the quantum eraser > experiment > > shows can't be our measurement that does it, so perhaps > > our knowledge (or our consciousness) of the result triggers it. In > saying our > > consciousness causes collapse, it has tied our progress > > in the measurement problem to the question of what consciousness is. And > this > > is why the only known experimental test to disprove > > collapse as objectively real requires a conscious observer whom we are > able > > to quantum erase their memory. > > > > > > > > > measurement which would say when the universe stops obeying QM > during > > wave function collapse. But no advocate of CI, > > other than > > > perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math > would > > be. If advocates of CI did propose alternate > > mathematical > > > > Give them time! ;) > > > > They've had 100 years. ?? > > Come on, what about 100 more? ;) > > > > > > > > descriptions for their theory, it would be clear that MW and > > Copenhagen are different theories. CI refuses to make such > > > specifications which keeps the waters muddied, and maintains the > > illusion that no possible test can be done to > > distinguish between > > > them. > > > > Refuses to make such specifications... yet. ;) Another > justification > > for > > my agnosticism is that we've not reached the finish line and many > > things > > and geniuses could come and go. Sadly, as you said in the example > of > > heliocentrism, it can take 100s of years. =( > > > > But the thing is, ever since Everett we have had a solution to the > > measurement problem. He showed why we would have the appearance of > > wave function collapse even if the wave function never collapsed. Ever > since > > they time, I think it's become a mind of fools errand to > > try to explain it as a real phenomenon (when we can show how without > assuming > > it, we can explain it's appearance). > > The situation is a bit like trying to find some new unseen force that > kept > > the moon in the sky, well after Newton's theory of gravity > > and inertia provided us a perfect explanation for what keeps it there. > > > > > > > > > > > Since we live "in time" I find that proposition easier to swallow, > than > > universes completely beyond this one. So my degree of belief is > higher > > in points in time, partly supported by my human experience. > > > > I think there the right framing, in terms of different degrees of > confidence. > > > > For instance, I might be 99% confident in the existence of past and > future > > points in time, but 95% confident in the many histories of > > QM. > > Makes sense. And in my case, since I like to stick to the pragmatically > material, at the moment my confidence in MWI and other similar > interpretations is very low, just as it is when it comes to the bearded > man in the sky. > > Do I say 0%? Probably not, but how close to 0 is 0? ;) But at the same > time I am reluctant to add probabilities to states and things out of > this world, and I feel much better saying we don't know. > To me, we have two theories: One can explain quantum computers, the other cannot. And we now have quantum computers. > > > > You only get the handwaving "we don't know" from the interpretations > that > > deny the reality of these parallel states. But in denying > > the reality of the intermediate parallel states it becomes impossible to > > explain the correct answer existing in final state. > > > > To seal the deal, ask what happens when we run a brain simulation on a > > quantum computer, initialized so it perceives many different > > inputs. Does this not realize many parallel conscious states? > > We don't know. Let's run a brain simulation and see how it goes. We know what the equations of QM say, and all interpretations say the same thing: We get a massive superposition of, let's say, billions of simultaneous simulations of the brain, each experiencing a different input. - CI says: while all these billions of brain simulations exist and were simulated, once we interact with the quantum computer all but 1 disappears. (but it does not deny that they billions of separate brain computations *did* exist) - MW says: while all these billions of brain simulations exist and were simulated, once we interact with the quantum computer, we entangle our state with the superposition and become superposed ourself, such that we get a corresponding copy of ourself corresponding to each of the billions of individual simulated brain states. There is no mystery, question, or disagreement between MW and CI until such time that we measure/interact with the quantum computer, because before such time, there is no wave function collapse. > What > you say is hand waving, I interpret as many view points, the agnostic > one being one of them like the quote above. > If you think any part of what I said is hand waving, simply ask for clarification on any point and I would be happy to delve deeper. > > > Among the many ways it > > could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it > > could work. > > > > Look at the explanations the AI gave under different assumed > interpretations. > > Did you find the explanation assuming CI satisfactory? > > Due to my lack of the underlying equations, I would not trust myself to > judge, except for the fact, that I do feel more inclinved to believe > theories which do not postulate multiple worlds. > The theory does not postulate multiple worlds. We postulate the theory itself, which in this case is QM. The multiple worlds are predictions of this theory. This is true both in CI and MW. The only difference between CI and MW concerns what happens to these worlds when a measurement is made. CI says all but one disappear, MW says they continue to exist. The quantum computer is particularly useful to highlight this difference, because quantum computers permit us to delay the measurement/collapse for arbitrarily long times, and to perform arbitrarily complex computations/operations, completely free of measurement/collapse. > > > > > > Here is one example: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments > > > > I don't think anything there is specific to Bohm's interpretation. I see > > Bohm's interpretation as entirely philosophical. It admits > > the existence of all the parallel histories, it just says that only one > of > > them is "really real" and that the unfortunate souls in > > the branches that aren't really real are not really conscious. > > Well, that's one example that shows that the various interpretations > have their own ways of believing they can prove one or the other. > Correctly or incorrectly, they do exist. > Hmm. I am not sure how to resolve this. It seems incompatible with what is said here (which was my understanding), that BM gives identical predictions to QM: - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/78x6e0/ive_heard_that_bohmian_mechanics_aka_pilot_wave/ I do not understand the intricacies of BM well enough to say whether or not that is true, but perhaps you can find some BM expert who claims the theory does make different predictions, in which case it would not be an interpretation, but its own theory. > > > "An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the > potential > > validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil > > droplets. > > In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a > vibrating > > fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves > produced > > by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical > behavior > > with > > remarkable accuracy". > > > > The question to ask is whether Bohm's theory predicts anything different > we > > could observe about the electron compared to conventional > > QM. I would be greatly surprised to learn that it does. > > > > > > > Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" > book. > > I might recommend that if you want to see his > > best attempt at > > > explaining it. > > > > Thank you Jason, I've added it to my book list. > > > > > No, I think it was the theology that triggered me here, since I > don't > > play that game according to the rules of theologists, which makes > those > > discussions fairly meaningless to me, unless we beforehand go > through > > "the rules". > > > > A rational theologian, could use logic and reason in their analysis > though, > > could they not? > > Well, logic only shows us the relationship between terms, so it would be > very convincing. It would be a game where terms, he defines at will, > conforms to them. > Like mathematics, philosophy, logic, etc. :-) > > > > > > Yes, of course. If we start to hack away at god and modify the > concept, > > I am certain you can make me a believer depending on the > definition. =) > > > > Then we are doing theology, hopefully not the kind that scares you. ?? > > Well, not what I would call theology. But again, we can play by your > definition of theology, and yes, we're doing theology. I think you > should come up with a new term. I think keeping "theology" will close a > lot of minds to what you have to say. > Hmm I never considered that. > > > > Well, here I am not in agreement with you. I did read your blog > entry > > on > > the meaning of life for instance, and I do like the way you > structured > > it, but I do not buy your conclusion. But that might perhaps be > another > > mega-thread? =) > > > > I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of > > departure between our views with regards to this subject. > > I don't know if we should start that one now, or let this one run its > course first? > Let's start it. I am not sure how much longer this one can continue. We already seem to be recovering the same ground. > > > > > Again, I think here I do not agree. Science can of course > investigate > > the phenomenon of religion from a social and psychological point of > > view, but it can never explain it. > > > > What makes you so certain? > > Because it is by its nature a subjective and deeply personal experience. You run into the qualia problem of redness. You can describe of course, > how it affects someones life, they can verbally or visually tell you > about it, but you can never yourself know the meaning of it for the > other person. So the external, objective side, science can deal with > perfectly well, but the subjective, meaningful side, science cannot deal > with. > We know (loosely) what physical conditions create a living, conscious, human being. If we can find evidence that those conditions can recur (scientifically, using objective empirical evidence), then we are using science to investigate/find evidence for a life after this one (an after life). We need not introduce the incommunicability of private subjective experience to find such evidence. This evidence already exists, in the context of eternal inflation. It implies you will be born infinite number of times in future universes formed by future big bangs. > > > Traditional religion as exprienced > > phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science. > > > > Religion rooted in personal experience is often distinguished with the > term > > "mysticism." Science, concerned with the objective then, > > would have great difficulty handling mysticism, which is based on > subjective > > experience. > > Yes, exactly my point. I think here, as with god and theology, we were > just not careful about definitions, so I think we're very close in our > opinions here. But let's see. > > > > > This is one of the main difficulties science has with studying > consciousness > > (which is entirely subjective). But I feel you would not > > say that consciousness is entirely outside the scope of science, on > account > > of consciousness being a subjective phenomenon. > > No, consciousness objectified, yes. Subjectified no. > > > > > > > > > > > For example, see these sections from my articles: > > > > * > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts > > > > * > > > https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife > > > > * > > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God > > > > > > I think there is no rational evidence of god. > > > > > > You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of > any? > > The two are very different statements. > > > > Depends on your definition of god. So let's start with the easy > option > > and say that I believe there is not, and can not be, any rational > > evidence of the bearded man in the sky. > > > > But I skipped ahead, and let's play with the definitions, and then > of > > course, when we move away from the classical one, it gets more > > interesting. > > > > > > > > > > But here already I'm a believer! My computer and current AI:s have > > vastly greater capacity than me in some domains, so according to > that > > defintion, sir, yes sir! > > > > > - Spatially infinite universes > > > - Mathematical Platonism > > > - Quantum Multiverse theories > > > - String theory landscapes > > > - Simulation Hypothesis > > > > Not a fan of the above. > > > > > - Technological Singularity > > > > Here there is much common ground and basis for discussion about > > definition of god. > > > > > > "Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater > > knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater > > creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In > every > > monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of > > these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite > > intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite > > love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution > never > > achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes > > exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution > > moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although > > never quite reaching this ideal." > > -- Ray Kurzweil in ?The Singularity is Near? (2005) > > > > > You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can > > explain how it leads to beings that are superior to > > ourselves, and > > > > I don't! Unlike many others, you were open to considering other > definitions > > and changing your beliefs according based on the > > different definitions. The atheists on the other hand, tend to never > accept > > other definitions besides the one god they chose to not > > believe in. > > I think that is due to fear of losing control and predictability of the > world perhaps. And the other kind I've read about are people who were > abused within the framework of a religion. But I digress. > Yes it does seem to have some psychological basis. > > > I am curious but also pressed for time, so I don't know when I would > have > > time to read them. I will take a look though. > > Will send you off list, and just put them on the virtual reading list. > ;) > Thank you! > > > > > > > > > I guess some suspend their judgement awaiting further evidence, > and I > > am > > absolutely certain that there are many who are trying but we are > not > > aware of them. Last night I heard of something called the > zero-worlds > > theory! I have no idea if it makes sense, but it obviously was > inspired > > by the MWI. > > > > > > It is explained well in this talk: > > https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=PFH_UFGrvKYGQnDk > > > > I am quite partial to the "zero universe interpretation", it highlights > the > > fact that what we call universes are emergent and not > > quite real in the sense our intuition suggests. It is quite similar to > the > > "many-minds interpretation". All the these theories accept > > a plethora of stuff, where they differ is in what they consider as the > truly > > fundamental unit of this reality. Many-worlds would say > > it's the material, whereas zero universe/many-minds would say it's the > > observer-state (i.e. consciousness). > > > > I think this view, that consciousness is more fundamental is closer to > the > > truth. It is not that "worlds split" but rather that > > "consciousness differentiates." > > I had a feeling you would enjoy it! =) > > > > > One would think people get into physics to better understand reality, > but > > then, I don't know how to explain such a lack of curiosity. > > I asked about it, and the reason was too see the world. The fact that it > ended up being physics was that it was just an easy subject for the > person and led to easily achieving scholarships which led to being able > to travel and to see the world. > > Makes sense! > > > > > > Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I > hadn't > > seen before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been > > made when he > > > was still writing Fabric of Reality: > > > https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd > > > > Thank you very much! You do realize this will take time away from > my > > current watching of Halo? And I do have to say I see similarities > > between Halo and The Expanse. > > > > > > ?? > > > > Is Halo airing again or is there just one season? > > No, just one season. Since I have never played the game I enjoy it. But > I suspect hard core fans will most likely not enjoy it. > I liked it. > > > The first few seasons of The Expanse were quite great. > > Oh yes! I mentally stopped with the gate, and the rest I try to forget. > > I think that was when they got a new team of writers. > > > Yes I think it is a guide, but it too can be overly relied upon, to our > > detriment. > > Having read my fair share of philosophical debates, that has always been > my intuition. I think it is a good tool, but also one tha can easily > lead us astray and be misused. > True. > > >= > > There is work to unify QM and gravity (quantum gravity theories), the > most > > prominent being string theory and loop quantum gravity. > > However it should be stated that both of these are fundamentally quantum > > theories. They don't escape any of the strangeness of QM, > > rather they just offer a hope that we can understand both QM and GR as > > elements of the same more-fundamental theory. My intuition is > > that GR is more likely to be changed and modified than QM, given that in > the > > one resolved example where they gave different > > predictions, (the black hole information paradox), QM won out and GR was > > wrong. > > Strange! I haven't heard about string theory in a long while. > There hasn't been much progress. I think it has made two predictions so far. The first is that there should be a force like gravity, and second, that the mass of particles is something that when multiplied by zero, is zero. > > > > > > > Oh, that reminds me. That was one of the arguments in the realism > vs > > anti-realism debate and whether the intangibles and unobservables > have > > existence or not, that historically there were many unobservables > that > > did exist, only to later be found to not exist. So having based > > decisions on unobservables historically, they would have been > wrong. > > Well, just remembered, and we covered that to a certain extent > above > > when I wrote about the value of theories. > > > > > > Good point. We might also observe that 99.9% of scientific theories have > been > > proven wrong, so on this empirical basis then, we > > should never have any high confidence in our theories. ?? > > Aha... spoken like a true agnostic! Did I just convert you? ;) > Perhaps. But the other thing to note, is that when long-tested physical theories are wrong, they're usually only "exceptionally wrong", but usually still "approximately correct". QM might not be the final answer, but I think much of its implications would survive in any more-correct new theory. > > > > > > Yes it is always good to keep that in mind. As Linde reminds us: > > > > "We find that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most > conveniently > > formulated if we assume that there is some underlying > > reality beyond our perceptions. This model of a material world obeying > laws > > of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our > > starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions > are > > nothing but a useful tool for the description of matter. > > This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our > previous > > assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the > > description of matter. We are substituting reality of our feelings by > the > > successfully working theory of an independently existing > > material world. And the theory is so successful that we almost never > think > > about its possible limitations." > > -- Andrei Linde in ?Inflation, Quantum Cosmology, and the Anthropic > > Principle? (2002) > > Good quote. > Thanks. It's good not to forget that subjectivity is the root of science. Greats, like Planck, Shrodinger, Wigner, Wheeler, occasionally step in to remind physicists of this and keep them humble. > > > > > "The principal argument [against materialism] is that thought processes > and > > consciousness are the primary concepts, that our > > knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and > that > > the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the > > contrary, logically, the external world could be denied?though it is not > very > > practical to do so." > > ? Eugene Wigner in ?Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem? (1961) > > > > Great minds think alike. ?? > > ;) > > > > They do predict things about our physical universe though. The fact that > > shadows are not perfectly crisp, but always blurry, is an > > effect other parallel worlds have on our universe. We can see that > shadows > > are blurry. It may be less subtle than a punch in the > > face, but it's there and we can see it with our own eyes. > > Well, if it is that simple, I am sure that the MWI will soon become > dominant. But something tells me that the fact that shadows are blurry > can probably be explainedin other ways, or perhaps, that we cannot > exactly explain it yet. But, a good example nevertheless! > Thanks! > > > > > Do you think there is an answer? > > > For example would you say that exactly one of the following two > > sentences is true: > > > A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0 > > > B) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1 > > > > > > I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even > if we > > can't know which one is true. > > > > Yes, but this is not a state of the world or a scientific theory, > so > > I'd > > argue that this does not apply to our discussion of whether MWI > can > > ever > > be proven or not. Add to that, that we also don't know the answer, > so > > as > > far as we are concerned it is undefined. > > > > > > Right it is not relevant to the question of MW. I asked for some > > clarification regarding your philosophy of mathematics, which you > > include more details on below. > > Sorry! Misunderstood. > No worries! > > > > When would you say that 17 became prime? > > > A) it's always been prime > > > B) After the big bang > > > C) When 17-year cicadas evolved > > > D) When man invented numbers > > > E) When man first counted to 17 > > > F) When humans defined prime numbers > > > G) When the first person proved 17 was prime > > > H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime > > > I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 > is > > prime > > > > I'd say H and I. Remove all counsciousness and the concept no > longer > > has > > any existence. > > > > > > The concept would not exist, but would it's truth exist? > > As long as there is a mind to evaluate the truth, yes. Without minds, > just matter. > I think that is consistent. I agree something has to be primitively real, but I am not as certain as you that it must be matter. I think an even better case can be made for math. https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Math_Matter_Mind > > > > > > So when there is objective agreement between two subjects, why then do > we > > admit the chemical element as part of reality but not these > > other objects which we can also objectively study? > > If you mean math, it is just have the properties of the physical world > is thought about by the beings. Without the beings, that languages and > its truth values, lose all meaning. Only matter is left. > Or maybe not even matter? ?? > > > > > > Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has > meaning > > when being interpreted by human consciousness. > > > > You could say the same thing about matter, could you not? > > Yes, if everything is doubted, of course. But as Wigner said, matter is > the most practical way and assumption, that leads to massive benefits, > so I don't see any reason why I should doubt matter. > I don't ask you to doubt matter. Only to question your belief that matter is what is most fundamental (and not derivative of something more primitive). > > > > > > > Since math tries to > > describe aspects of nature in human form, > > > > Is it uniquely human, or could aliens discover the same mathematical > truths > > as we have discovered (despite them using different > > notation)? > > Sorry my mistake. Consciousness. I am certain if we meet aliens, they > will have math. And yes, since they are attempting to describe the same > world of matter, their math will correspond with our math, unless they > are better observers and develop the tool/language further. > ?? > > > > it will follow that every time > > we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool, > > > > > > But as Godel showed, there is no final (or finite) set of rules that > accounts > > for all mathematical truth. We must constantly strive > > to develop ever more powerful theories of mathematical objects, just as > > physicists must always strive to develop better more powerful > > theories in physics. This again, suggests to me, that mathematical truth > is > > not a human invention but something infinite and beyond > > ourselves. It is something we study, much like we study the physical > world. > > Well, based on my opinions above, I do not share that point of view. I'm not sure how is is something that can be the subject of opinion. There's a mathematical proof (widely considered the greatest mathematical discovery of past the century) that shows this opinion is no longer tenable. I > believe it is an invention only meaningful when interpreted by > consciousness. > I am surprised then that you did not agree with my meaning of life article, whose principle claim was that all meaning reduces to states of consciousness. > > > > > > the > > constants will hold. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They only exist when we interpret > > > them. > > > > > > This seems like idealism, only applied to mathematical objects. > If > > all the mathematicians go to sleep at the same > > time, does the > > > ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter stop being > > 3.14259... ? > > > > In terms of human language and meaning yes. Those are only ideas > in the > > mind. Of course you can write down the ideas and how to use the > > language. But the concepts are only meaningful to you, when thought > > about. > > > > In terms of aspects in the world, that math tries to describe, no, > > those > > aspects still hold, assuming an external world of some kind. > > > > Would you say, similarly, that this universe did not exist before there > were > > any conscious observers within it? > > I would say that it did not meaningfully exist. > No disagreement here. > > > > > > > > > This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not > have > > happened > > > unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;) > > > > > > I feel we are writing a book together. ?? > > > > Oh yes! What should we call it? ;) Maybe it's time to sit down > together > > for a month or two and harvest the thread into a book? ;) > > > > > > We've covered so much it is hard to say what the topic would be. ?? > > If there is any overriding theme, it is the tension between scientific > > realism and "empirical confirmationism" if that phrase makes > > sense. > > Yes, I agree. I think that is one fundamental tension. Also we touched > on identity and idealism vs materialism. Maybe a good title would be > "How not to do philosophy"? ;) > > Best regards, Daniel Best, Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 03:34:27 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 20:34:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Out breeding Message-ID: (About 4600 years ago.) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/nov/18/archaeology-germany-dna-nuclear-family " The team also examined evidence of where the people had grown up by analysing the combination of different forms of strontium in their teeth. The ratio of strontium isotopes depends on a person's diet during childhood and reflects the dominant rock types in the area. While the men and children had a strontium profile that indicates they were raised nearby, the women came from outside the area. " Pike said this was evidence of a patrilocal society, where families "married out" their daughters, either to avoid inbreeding or build allegiances with neighbours." Some time ago I read a detailed account with more individuals. But the thing that amazed me is that people had figured out long ago that inbreeding was a bad idea and went to considerable trouble to avoid it. (Like importing wives from a long distance.) I wonder if they did the same with farm animals. Keith From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 06:11:53 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 23:11:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Computational Zones Message-ID: Interesting in the context of Tabby's star and the other couple of dozen stars near it. Rebuilding the Habitable Zone from the Bottom Up with Computational Zones Caleb Scharf NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA. Olaf Witkowski Cross Labs, Cross Compass Ltd., Kyoto, Japan College of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan caleb.a.scharf at nasa.gov olaf at crosslabs.org Submitted to The Astrobiology Journal, March 2023 Abstract Computation, if treated as a set of physical processes that act Keith From efc at swisscows.email Mon Sep 25 21:30:13 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:30:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <7074d8ff-bf7e-8ed1-3ffd-2ee43f9ee7cb@swisscows.email> <090290cd-e9d9-3be0-2581-284d42471d01@swisscows.email> <7bd14786-1ffb-63cb-9d1c-a699eebb3f30@swisscows.email> <00280595-3a69-ea93-12f6-319dbee882ad@swisscows.email> <398e36f0-3f16-01ff-e20f-2f79f18943c9@swisscows.email> <56761280-d9fd-3b68-ba48-3a17c2be0b88@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <34a78bdd-09ef-a17b-6254-0efb737b34cd@swisscows.email> > It appears that it was something you said in an e-mail from you from 12 days ago (Sept 12) in this same thread. The following is the > full quote/context: > > "Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this > life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven. > It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that > by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way, > its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by > definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this > world. > > > There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that > difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather > uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see > how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will > change its mind, and so would I. > > > I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will > change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the > finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;)"? > > I apologize?for attributing this quote to you?if this was not something you wrote. > Jason No worries! This was something I found on another list and thought it could be useful here. Best regards, Daniel From efc at swisscows.email Mon Sep 25 21:50:53 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:50:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Good evening Jason, On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > > eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to create many > > of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser > > gyroscopes, and particle accelerators. > > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation > > > > At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager even money on) > > the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of > > simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory) > > > A) After Einstein?published his paper in 1905 > > Probably no. > > > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was > > a better theory > > I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and understanding > would at least increase my confidence. > > > I would say to give it a shot. There are a lot of equations, but also a lot of plain english explanations, built up constructively > from simple definitions, such as clocks and simultaneity: > http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_male tin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf (Here is his original paper translated to English) I'll have a look but I make no promises! ;) At least the first 5 pages look very nice and easy. ;) > > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory > > Now we're getting somewhere. > > > D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been confirmed (in > > 1932) > > Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify would be > even better. > > > One thing which is quite clear in relativity, is how interdependent all the predictions of the theory are. For instance, the > prediction of time-dilation (where two observers measure time differently) automatically implies the existence of length-contraction > (where two observers measure distances differently). If one did not imply the other, they would not agree on the speed of light being > constant. Moreover, time-dilation and length-contraction together also imply relativity of simultaneity. Again, if not for this > phenomenon, the whole theory would break down. This is why testing and confirming even a single element of a theory, is enough to > provide confidence in the other predictions of a theory. > ? > > > E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been > > experimentally demonstrated > > I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol depending on > the sums of money involved. ;) > > > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of simultaneity > > had come into common use > > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such practical > > technologies > > H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two reference frames at > > once, to witness the same two events occur in a > > different order > > > > Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which point you > > would accept many-worlds: > > A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957 > > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and seeing why it was > > a better theory > > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds > > Getting closer... > > > I think that is perhaps a good heuristic for deciding what to put in a science textbook, but I don't think it's the best method for > one interested in seeking the truth (as we currently best understand it). Of course, to venture beyond the level of what has > sufficient consensus to be included in a textbook, one has to do some work in order to understand the various theories to be able to > compare their relative merits and weaknesses. No, of course. My perspective is a laymans perspective. If my main motivation in life was to know the truth of how the world is made up, I would have chosen an academic path and focused on physics. So I agree with you there. On the other hand, there is the questions of deep personal truth (meaning). So knowing the truth is one thing, and experiencing your truth is another. But this fuzzy concept I think we might reach in another mega-thread on the meaning of life, so let's try and keep this in mind once we get to it. > This article asks, why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in > school:?https://theconversation.com/why-dont-we-teach-einsteins-theories-in-school-69991 when it's been well over a century since > Einstein's theory overturned Newtonian mechanics, and we've confirmed essentially every prediction the theory has made. Very interesting! And to your point above: "One reason for Einstein?s absence from school science classes is that many people imagine that his theories require enormous mathematical skills. The educationalists at the conference emphatically rejected this viewpoint". I think the majority opinion is that it is too mathematical or difficult. Perhaps also, the math and physics skills of the typical teacher also influences this policy. I do know that my wifes mother is a physicist and teaches grade 1 to 9, and the government is constantly reducing the nr of hours she gets. The ltest "stroke of genius" is to combine the hours of physics, math and some other subject into one "natural science" subject, thus giving even less hours to stem. This does not bode well for the future of the country and its children. > > D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally confirmed > > (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse, > > Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.) > > Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and > verification from other teams. > > > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have been replicated > numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us anything about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other interpretations yet to be made up, etc. > > For anyone who believes relativity's prediction that nothing travels faster than light, the only way we can explain this experimental > result is with Many-Worlds. Those who subscribe to single-universe interpretations retreat to saying "well this effect can't be used > to transmit useful information faster than light, even though it transmits a random result faster than light, and relativity only > prohibits sending information faster than light" -- but this isn't what relativity says, relativity says causality can't travel > faster than the speed of light, and the spooky action, despite not being able to transmit meaningful information, is nonetheless a > violation of causal influences traveling faster than light. It is why Einstein objected so strongly to this implication of > single-universe QM (at the time physicists were not so bold as to propose or even consider that QM implied many-worlds), but MW > resolved all the problems Einstein had with the theory: it made QM local (no spooky action), deterministic (God doesn't play dice), > and realistic (the moon still exists when no one is looking at it). Therefore, I believe that had Einstein lived to see Everett's > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly. Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action, but that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple worlds. For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I think the fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that this experiment is not conclusive. Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the other mailinglist? I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it seems I got it! > > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally demonstrated > > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum > > computer) > > I think here probably. > > > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a personality > trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is.? Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I have very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes, it is probably a personality trait. > I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that > this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads > around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand... > what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up > and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic. > > I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our > brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science > fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains > to experience new realities. ;) > > > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted. Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in? =) > "One?s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains many possible ?parallel universes?, and that we have > selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad isn?t about > ?parallel universes?, it?s about universes that are entangled at the finest possible level. And an important consequence of > this is that it means we?re not ?stuck in a particular parallel universe?. Instead, we can expect that by somehow ?changing our > point of view?, we can effectively find ourselves in a ?different universe?." > -- Stephen Wolfram in ?The Concept of the Ruliad? (2021) Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite science and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book, and I would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think. Best regards, Daniel > > > > Best, > > Jason > > From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 22:35:56 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 18:35:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 5:50 PM wrote: > Good evening Jason, > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > eventually confirmed, and they were fundamental to understand to > create many > > > of Today's technologies, like GPS, ring laser > > > gyroscopes, and particle accelerators. > > > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/#Testing_time_dilation > > > > > > At what point would you have accepted (been willing to wager > even money on) > > > the truth of the phenomenon of the relativity of > > > simultaneity (as predicted by Einstein's theory) > > > > > A) After Einstein published his paper in 1905 > > > > Probably no. > > > > > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and > seeing why it was > > > a better theory > > > > I wonder if I could read and understand it? Reading and > understanding > > would at least increase my confidence. > > > > > > I would say to give it a shot. There are a lot of equations, but also a > lot of plain english explanations, built up constructively > > from simple definitions, such as clocks and simultaneity: > > http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_male > tin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf (Here is his original paper translated to > English) > > I'll have a look but I make no promises! ;) At least the first 5 pages > look very nice and easy. ;) > Great to hear ?? > > > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Einstein's theory > > > > Now we're getting somewhere. > > > > > D) After one prediction of special relativity had first been > confirmed (in > > > 1932) > > > > Getting close, but having other scientist duplicate and verify > would be > > even better. > > > > > > One thing which is quite clear in relativity, is how interdependent all > the predictions of the theory are. For instance, the > > prediction of time-dilation (where two observers measure time > differently) automatically implies the existence of length-contraction > > (where two observers measure distances differently). If one did not > imply the other, they would not agree on the speed of light being > > constant. Moreover, time-dilation and length-contraction together also > imply relativity of simultaneity. Again, if not for this > > phenomenon, the whole theory would break down. This is why testing and > confirming even a single element of a theory, is enough to > > provide confidence in the other predictions of a theory. > > > > > > > E) Only after the effect of relativity of simultaneity had been > > > experimentally demonstrated > > > > I think maybe here. Possibly C or D after a bit of alcohol > depending on > > the sums of money involved. ;) > > > > > F) Only after practical technologies exploiting relativity of > simultaneity > > > had come into common use > > > G) Only after you had personally used and benefited from such > practical > > > technologies > > > H) Only after someone invents a device to experience two > reference frames at > > > once, to witness the same two events occur in a > > > different order > > > > > > Now let us consider the analogous question for QM, and at which > point you > > > would accept many-worlds: > > > A) After Everettt published his paper in 1957 > > > B) After personally reading and understanding his paper and > seeing why it was > > > a better theory > > > C) After a majority of physicists had endorsed Many-Worlds > > > > Getting closer... > > > > > > I think that is perhaps a good heuristic for deciding what to put in a > science textbook, but I don't think it's the best method for > > one interested in seeking the truth (as we currently best understand > it). Of course, to venture beyond the level of what has > > sufficient consensus to be included in a textbook, one has to do some > work in order to understand the various theories to be able to > > compare their relative merits and weaknesses. > > No, of course. My perspective is a laymans perspective. If my main > motivation in life was to know the truth of how the world is made up, I > would have chosen an academic path and focused on physics. So I agree > with you there. > > On the other hand, there is the questions of deep personal truth > (meaning). So knowing the truth is one thing, and experiencing your > truth is another. But this fuzzy concept I think we might reach in > another mega-thread on the meaning of life, so let's try and keep this > in mind once we get to it. > Okay. > > This article asks, why we still teach Newtonian mechanics in > > school: > https://theconversation.com/why-dont-we-teach-einsteins-theories-in-school-69991 > when it's been well over a century since > > Einstein's theory overturned Newtonian mechanics, and we've confirmed > essentially every prediction the theory has made. > > Very interesting! And to your point above: > > "One reason for Einstein?s absence from school science classes is that > many people imagine that his theories require enormous mathematical > skills. The educationalists at the conference emphatically rejected this > viewpoint". > > I think the majority opinion is that it is too mathematical or > difficult. Perhaps also, the math and physics skills of the typical > teacher also influences this policy. > That may explain a lot of it. > I do know that my wifes mother is a physicist and teaches grade 1 to 9, > and the government is constantly reducing the nr of hours she gets. The > ltest "stroke of genius" is to combine the hours of physics, math and > some other subject into one "natural science" subject, thus giving even > less hours to stem. This does not bode well for the future of the > country and its children. > How unfortunate. > > > D) After one prediction of Many-Worlds had been experimentally > confirmed > > > (i.e., any prediction of QM that casts doubt on collapse, > > > Wigner's friend, EPR, etc.) > > > > Either here, but would love to have some duplicate tests and > > verification from other teams. > > > > > > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky > action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have been replicated > > numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. > > But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us anything > about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other > interpretations yet to be made up, etc. > It tells us one thing quite clearly: If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are many worlds). So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes. This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions that travel at the speed of light or slower. BTW, this is an interesting exercise to go through, to consider, if MW had been proposed first, would anyone have advocated for CI: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first > > > > For anyone who believes relativity's prediction that nothing travels > faster than light, the only way we can explain this experimental > > result is with Many-Worlds. Those who subscribe to single-universe > interpretations retreat to saying "well this effect can't be used > > to transmit useful information faster than light, even though it > transmits a random result faster than light, and relativity only > > prohibits sending information faster than light" -- but this isn't what > relativity says, relativity says causality can't travel > > faster than the speed of light, and the spooky action, despite not being > able to transmit meaningful information, is nonetheless a > > violation of causal influences traveling faster than light. It is why > Einstein objected so strongly to this implication of > > single-universe QM (at the time physicists were not so bold as to > propose or even consider that QM implied many-worlds), but MW > > resolved all the problems Einstein had with the theory: it made QM local > (no spooky action), deterministic (God doesn't play dice), > > and realistic (the moon still exists when no one is looking at it). > Therefore, I believe that had Einstein lived to see Everett's > > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly. > > Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action, Spooky action is only implied under collapse theories, which require that collapse be instantaneous across any distance of space in order to explain the observed results. There is no spooky action under MW. but > that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple > worlds. It does, if one believes in relativity. For if relativity is true then the only remaining answer to explain the outcome of Aspect's experiment is many worlds. For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it > increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I think the > fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that this > experiment is not conclusive. > No one doubts Aspect's result. It's just some choose to abandon all that physics has held holy (relativity, causality, determinism, locality, realism, and time-reversibility) while others, keep those things, read the math of QMs equations literally, and accept the idea that there could be more than one of them. > Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the > other mailinglist? > I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's archive online? > I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it seems > I got it! > That's great. I would like to see it. > > > > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally > demonstrated > > > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum > > > computer) > > > > I think here probably. > > > > > > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of > proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a personality > > trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is. > > Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well > depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I have > very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes, it is > probably a personality trait. > > > I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think > that > > this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our > heads > > around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other > hand... > > what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the > "shut up > > and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic. > > > > I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but > our > > brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science > > fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our > brains > > to experience new realities. ;) > > > > > > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted. > > Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in? =) > > > "One?s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains > many possible ?parallel universes?, and that we have > > selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our > particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad isn?t about > > ?parallel universes?, it?s about universes that are entangled at the > finest possible level. And an important consequence of > > this is that it means we?re not ?stuck in a particular parallel > universe?. Instead, we can expect that by somehow ?changing our > > point of view?, we can effectively find ourselves in a ?different > universe?." > > -- Stephen Wolfram in ?The Concept of the Ruliad? (2021) > > Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite science > and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book, and I > would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think. > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ? Jason > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jason > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 23:04:38 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:04:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 23:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are many worlds). > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes. > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions that travel at the speed of light or slower. > > Jason > _______________________________________________ I asked several chatbots (that presumably have been trained on current quantum theory) and they all agree with Daniel that MWI is only one of several interpretations of quantum theory. One sample response was: Question: Does spooky action and violation of Bell's inequalities imply many worlds interpretation? Answer | GPT-3.5-Turbo Model The violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are mathematical constraints that describe the correlations between measurements on entangled particles. The violation of these inequalities indicates that the predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables, which are deterministic properties of the particles that are independent of the measurements made on them. The MWI is one interpretation of quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel universes or multiple worlds to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena [10]. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one of the oldest and most commonly taught interpretations, also takes into account the violation of Bell's inequalities. It rejects the assumption of counterfactual definiteness or "realism" and argues that quantum mechanics is as realistic as any theory of its scope and maturity can be [12]. The Copenhagen Interpretation emphasizes the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics and the need to consider specific laboratory arrangements and complementary properties of quantum systems [12]. It is important to note that the interpretation of Bell's theorem and its implications for the nature of reality are still subjects of debate among physicists and philosophers. While the violation of Bell's inequalities suggests non-locality and challenges certain classical notions of reality, it does not necessarily imply the MWI or any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics [12]. In summary: Violation of Bell's inequalities indicates that the predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables. The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel worlds, but the violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply this interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation is another widely taught interpretation that takes into account the violation of Bell's inequalities and emphasizes the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics. The interpretation of Bell's theorem and its implications for the nature of reality are still subjects of debate among physicists and philosophers [10] [12]. ----------------------------- BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 02:26:47 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 22:26:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 7:06 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 23:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > > > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then > measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are many worlds). > > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either > relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes. > > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need > for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the Bell > inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions > that travel at the speed of light or slower. > > > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > > I asked several chatbots (that presumably have been trained on current > quantum theory) and they all agree with Daniel that MWI is only one of > several interpretations of quantum theory. > All the bots are trained to heavily weight what exists on Wikipedia, which I think accounts for their common answers on these topics. > One sample response was: > Question: > Does spooky action and violation of Bell's inequalities imply many > worlds interpretation? > I don't think that's a good phrasing. MW holds that there is no spooky action. It only seems that way because experiments have more than one outcome (and we always find ourselves in a branch with consistent results). The Bell inequalities only require spooky action under the condition that experiments only have a single outcome. I would instead ask the AI(a): What interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with local realism, that is, the property that there are no instantaneous faster than light influences? > Answer | GPT-3.5-Turbo Model > > The violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply the > Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. The Bell inequalities together with Aspect's experimental confirmation of them, only imply Many-Worlds if one holds relativity to be true, (and therefore one believes relativity's principle tenet: that causality is limited by the speed of light). Bell's > inequalities are mathematical constraints that describe the > correlations between measurements on entangled particles. The > violation of these inequalities indicates that the predictions of > quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables, This is incomplete. See question 32 here, and it's answer: https://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds "To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurements split local systems (including observers) in a subjectively random fashion; distant systems are only split when the causally transmitted effects of the local interactions reach them. We have not assumed any non-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the standard predictions of QM. So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong? They thought that all theories that reproduced the standard predictions must be non-local. It has been pointed out by both Albert [A] and Cramer [C] (who both support different interpretations of QM) that Bell and Eberhard had implicity assumed that every possible measurement -even if not performed - would have yielded a *single* definite result. This assumption is called contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S]. What Bell and Eberhard really proved was that every quantum theory must either violate locality *or* CFD. Many-worlds with its multiplicity of results in different worlds violates CFD, of course, and thus can be local. Thus many-worlds is the only local quantum theory in accord with the standard predictions of QM and, so far, with experiment." which > are deterministic properties of the particles that are independent of > the measurements made on them. The MWI is one interpretation of > quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel universes or > multiple worlds to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum > phenomena [10]. > This is true but unrelated to the question you asked. > The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one of > the oldest and most commonly taught interpretations, also takes into > account the violation of Bell's inequalities. It rejects the > assumption of counterfactual definiteness or "realism" and argues that > quantum mechanics is as realistic as any theory of its scope and > maturity can be [12]. The Copenhagen Interpretation emphasizes the > indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics and the need to consider > specific laboratory arrangements and complementary properties of > quantum systems [12]. > This is also irrelevant to your question. What is important here is that CI assumes wave function collapse, and moreover requires that it be instantaneous across any distance of space (and thus faster than light). So measuring a particle on the other side of the galaxy immediately affects the state of its entangled counterpart here in Earth. Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information. But to me, this is clearly a violation of it. As Einstein (along with his co-authors) wrote of the situation: https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf "This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does not disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this." And in a 1947 letter to Max Born: "I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because it cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance." Einstein saw QM (with it's assumption of instantaneous wave function collapse) as fundamentally in conflict with the idea of there being a real world out there, governed by local causal (speed-of-light obeying) interactions. > It is important to note that the interpretation of Bell's theorem and > its implications for the nature of reality are still subjects of > debate among physicists and philosophers. That's true. While the violation of > Bell's inequalities suggests non-locality and challenges certain > classical notions of reality, it does not necessarily imply the MWI or > any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics [12]. > The picture is this: There are three explanations for the EPR paradox: 1. Local hidden variables 2. FTL influences (a.k.a. spooky action) 3. Non-contra-factual definiteness (a.k.a many-worlds) Bell's inequalities rule out #1. That means , given Bell's theorem, either #2 or #3 are the remaining possibilities. Einstein was not aware of #3 as an option, and because he could not believe in spooky action, believed #1. This option was disproven by Bell. So if anyone wants to, in the spirit of Einstein, continue to believe the speed of light means something, the only option left is #3. Jason > In summary: > Violation of Bell's inequalities indicates that the predictions of > quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables. > The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one possible interpretation of > quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel worlds, but > the violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply this > interpretation. > The Copenhagen Interpretation is another widely taught interpretation > that takes into account the violation of Bell's inequalities and > emphasizes the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics. > The interpretation of Bell's theorem and its implications for the > nature of reality are still subjects of debate among physicists and > philosophers [10] [12]. > ----------------------------- > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 26 09:35:41 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 11:35:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <217fcdb7-9bc4-7718-34ea-93e0ea8c20bd@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, A quick follow up question... You say that: "Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information." and I wonder, if this cannot send meaningful information, what does it send? Random noise? Cannot bursts of random noise be used to signal something? I think I misunderstand something here. Best regards, Daniel On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 7:06 PM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 23:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > > > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., > there are many worlds). > > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple > universes. > > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need for any effect to travel faster than light to > explain the Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions that travel at the speed of > light or slower. > > > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > > I asked several chatbots (that presumably have been trained on current > quantum theory) and they all agree with Daniel that MWI is only one of > several interpretations of quantum theory. > > > All the bots are trained to heavily weight what exists on Wikipedia, which I think accounts for their common answers on these topics. > > > One sample response was: > Question: > Does spooky action and violation of Bell's inequalities imply many > worlds interpretation? > > > > I don't think that's a good phrasing. MW holds that there is no spooky action. It only seems that way because experiments have more > than one outcome (and we always find ourselves in a branch with consistent results). The Bell inequalities only require spooky action > under the condition that experiments only have a single outcome. > > I would instead ask the AI(a): > > What interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with local realism, that is, the property that there are no instantaneous > faster than light influences? > > > Answer | GPT-3.5-Turbo Model > > The violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply the > Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. > > > The Bell inequalities together with Aspect's experimental confirmation of them, only imply Many-Worlds if one holds relativity to be > true, (and therefore one believes relativity's principle tenet: that causality is limited by the speed of light). > > > Bell's > inequalities are mathematical constraints that describe the > correlations between measurements on entangled particles. The > violation of these inequalities indicates that the predictions of > quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables, > > > This is incomplete. See question 32 here, and it's answer: https://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds > > "To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurements split local systems (including observers) in a subjectively > random fashion; distant systems are only split when the causally transmitted effects of the local interactions reach them. We have > not assumed any non-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the standard predictions > of QM. > > So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong? They thought that all theories that reproduced the standard predictions must be non-local. > It has been pointed out by both Albert [A] and Cramer [C] (who both support different interpretations of QM) that Bell and Eberhard > had implicity assumed that every possible measurement -even if not performed - would have yielded a *single* definite result. This > assumption is called contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S]. What Bell and Eberhard really proved was that every quantum theory must > either violate locality *or* CFD. Many-worlds with its multiplicity of results in different worlds > violates CFD, of course, and thus can be local. > > Thus many-worlds is the only local quantum theory in accord with the standard predictions of QM and, so far, with experiment." > > > which > are deterministic properties of the particles that are independent of > the measurements made on them. The MWI is one interpretation of > quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel universes or > multiple worlds to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum > phenomena [10]. > > > This is true but unrelated to the question you asked. > > > > The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one of > the oldest and most commonly taught interpretations, also takes into > account the violation of Bell's inequalities. It rejects the > assumption of counterfactual definiteness or "realism" and argues that > quantum mechanics is as realistic as any theory of its scope and > maturity can be [12]. The Copenhagen Interpretation emphasizes the > indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics and the need to consider > specific laboratory arrangements and complementary properties of > quantum systems [12]. > > > This is also irrelevant to your question. What is important here is that CI assumes wave function collapse, and moreover requires > that it be instantaneous across any distance of space (and thus faster than light). So measuring a particle on the other side of the > galaxy immediately affects the state of its entangled counterpart here in Earth. > > Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information. > But to me, this is clearly a violation of it. As Einstein (along with his co-authors) wrote of the > situation:?https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf > > "This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does not disturb the > second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this." > > And in a 1947 letter to Max Born: > "I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because it cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality > in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance." > > Einstein saw QM (with it's assumption of instantaneous wave function collapse) as fundamentally in conflict with the idea of there > being a real world out there, governed by local causal (speed-of-light obeying) interactions. > > > It is important to note that the interpretation of Bell's theorem and > its implications for the nature of reality are still subjects of > debate among physicists and philosophers. > > > That's true. > > > While the violation of > Bell's inequalities suggests non-locality and challenges certain > classical notions of reality, it does not necessarily imply the MWI or > any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics [12]. > > > The picture is this: > > There are three explanations for the EPR paradox: > 1. Local hidden variables > 2. FTL influences (a.k.a. spooky action) > 3. Non-contra-factual definiteness (a.k.a many-worlds) > > Bell's inequalities rule out #1. That means , given Bell's theorem, either #2 or #3 are the remaining possibilities. > > Einstein was not aware of #3 as an option, and because he could not believe in spooky action, believed #1. This option was disproven > by Bell. > > So if anyone wants to, in the spirit of Einstein, continue to believe the speed of light means something, the only option left is #3. > > Jason > > > In summary: > Violation of Bell's inequalities indicates that the predictions of > quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables. > The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one possible interpretation of > quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel worlds, but > the violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply this > interpretation. > The Copenhagen Interpretation is another widely taught interpretation > that takes into account the violation of Bell's inequalities and > emphasizes the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics. > The interpretation of Bell's theorem and its implications for the > nature of reality are still subjects of debate among physicists and > philosophers [10] [12]. > ----------------------------- > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 10:43:04 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:43:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <217fcdb7-9bc4-7718-34ea-93e0ea8c20bd@swisscows.email> References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> <217fcdb7-9bc4-7718-34ea-93e0ea8c20bd@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 26, 2023, 5:37 AM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hello Jason, > > A quick follow up question... > > You say that: > > "Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of > relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information." > > and I wonder, if this cannot send meaningful information, what does it > send? Random noise? Cannot bursts of random noise be used to signal > something? > It sends: Correlations which are statistically greater than what can be accounted for by local, hidden, contrafactually-definite variables (i.e., correlations in excess of the maximum possible correlation as established by Bell's theorem). https://youtu.be/tafGL02EUOA?si=YsvQpK-6FTW2Vb3e The conventional story (under CI) is that there must be super-luminal communication between a particle and it's entangled counterpart, such that the other particle knows intently when and how it's far away twin was measured. As for why this can't be exploited for FTL communication, (the true answer is that there really isn't anything moving faster than light here), but CI would say that the periods of correlation when one side is doing the measurements in a certain way, can only be sifted from the uncorrelated times after the fact, that is only after there has been sub-luminal communication between the two sides, to share their measurement results. Only then do they uncover they they were correlated in ways that hidden variables can't explain. > I think I misunderstand something here. > You're on the exactly right track. In fact, the question you ask is exactly what led to this tech talk at Google. He asked why couldn't we use this measuring or not measuring on the other side as some kind of Morse code: https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc Jason > > > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 7:06 PM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 23:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > > > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than > light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., > > there are many worlds). > > > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that > either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple > > universes. > > > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is > no need for any effect to travel faster than light to > > explain the Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations > via local interactions that travel at the speed of > > light or slower. > > > > > > Jason > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > I asked several chatbots (that presumably have been trained on > current > > quantum theory) and they all agree with Daniel that MWI is only > one of > > several interpretations of quantum theory. > > > > > > All the bots are trained to heavily weight what exists on Wikipedia, > which I think accounts for their common answers on these topics. > > > > > > One sample response was: > > Question: > > Does spooky action and violation of Bell's inequalities imply many > > worlds interpretation? > > > > > > > > I don't think that's a good phrasing. MW holds that there is no spooky > action. It only seems that way because experiments have more > > than one outcome (and we always find ourselves in a branch with > consistent results). The Bell inequalities only require spooky action > > under the condition that experiments only have a single outcome. > > > > I would instead ask the AI(a): > > > > What interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with local > realism, that is, the property that there are no instantaneous > > faster than light influences? > > > > > > Answer | GPT-3.5-Turbo Model > > > > The violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply the > > Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. > > > > > > The Bell inequalities together with Aspect's experimental confirmation > of them, only imply Many-Worlds if one holds relativity to be > > true, (and therefore one believes relativity's principle tenet: that > causality is limited by the speed of light). > > > > > > Bell's > > inequalities are mathematical constraints that describe the > > correlations between measurements on entangled particles. The > > violation of these inequalities indicates that the predictions of > > quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables, > > > > > > This is incomplete. See question 32 here, and it's answer: > https://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds > > > > "To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurements > split local systems (including observers) in a subjectively > > random fashion; distant systems are only split when the causally > transmitted effects of the local interactions reach them. We have > > not assumed any non-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the > standard predictions > > of QM. > > > > So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong? They thought that all theories > that reproduced the standard predictions must be non-local. > > It has been pointed out by both Albert [A] and Cramer [C] (who both > support different interpretations of QM) that Bell and Eberhard > > had implicity assumed that every possible measurement -even if not > performed - would have yielded a *single* definite result. This > > assumption is called contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S]. What Bell > and Eberhard really proved was that every quantum theory must > > either violate locality *or* CFD. Many-worlds with its multiplicity of > results in different worlds > > violates CFD, of course, and thus can be local. > > > > Thus many-worlds is the only local quantum theory in accord with the > standard predictions of QM and, so far, with experiment." > > > > > > which > > are deterministic properties of the particles that are independent > of > > the measurements made on them. The MWI is one interpretation of > > quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel > universes or > > multiple worlds to explain the probabilistic nature of quantum > > phenomena [10]. > > > > > > This is true but unrelated to the question you asked. > > > > > > > > The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is one of > > the oldest and most commonly taught interpretations, also takes > into > > account the violation of Bell's inequalities. It rejects the > > assumption of counterfactual definiteness or "realism" and argues > that > > quantum mechanics is as realistic as any theory of its scope and > > maturity can be [12]. The Copenhagen Interpretation emphasizes the > > indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics and the need to > consider > > specific laboratory arrangements and complementary properties of > > quantum systems [12]. > > > > > > This is also irrelevant to your question. What is important here is that > CI assumes wave function collapse, and moreover requires > > that it be instantaneous across any distance of space (and thus faster > than light). So measuring a particle on the other side of the > > galaxy immediately affects the state of its entangled counterpart here > in Earth. > > > > Most who believe in CI will maintain that this is not a violation of > relativity, as it can't be used to send meaningful information. > > But to me, this is clearly a violation of it. As Einstein (along with > his co-authors) wrote of the > > situation: https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf > > > > "This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of > measurement carried out on the first system, which does not disturb the > > second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be > expected to permit this." > > > > And in a 1947 letter to Max Born: > > "I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because it cannot be > reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality > > in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance." > > > > Einstein saw QM (with it's assumption of instantaneous wave function > collapse) as fundamentally in conflict with the idea of there > > being a real world out there, governed by local causal (speed-of-light > obeying) interactions. > > > > > > It is important to note that the interpretation of Bell's theorem > and > > its implications for the nature of reality are still subjects of > > debate among physicists and philosophers. > > > > > > That's true. > > > > > > While the violation of > > Bell's inequalities suggests non-locality and challenges certain > > classical notions of reality, it does not necessarily imply the > MWI or > > any specific interpretation of quantum mechanics [12]. > > > > > > The picture is this: > > > > There are three explanations for the EPR paradox: > > 1. Local hidden variables > > 2. FTL influences (a.k.a. spooky action) > > 3. Non-contra-factual definiteness (a.k.a many-worlds) > > > > Bell's inequalities rule out #1. That means , given Bell's theorem, > either #2 or #3 are the remaining possibilities. > > > > Einstein was not aware of #3 as an option, and because he could not > believe in spooky action, believed #1. This option was disproven > > by Bell. > > > > So if anyone wants to, in the spirit of Einstein, continue to believe > the speed of light means something, the only option left is #3. > > > > Jason > > > > > > In summary: > > Violation of Bell's inequalities indicates that the predictions of > > quantum mechanics cannot be explained by local hidden variables. > > The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one possible interpretation of > > quantum mechanics that suggests the existence of parallel worlds, > but > > the violation of Bell's inequalities does not necessarily imply > this > > interpretation. > > The Copenhagen Interpretation is another widely taught > interpretation > > that takes into account the violation of Bell's inequalities and > > emphasizes the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics. > > The interpretation of Bell's theorem and its implications for the > > nature of reality are still subjects of debate among physicists and > > philosophers [10] [12]. > > ----------------------------- > > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Tue Sep 26 13:52:01 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:52:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <8c96b055-80d8-88b7-c07e-9e1cd415629a@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have > been replicated > > numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. > > But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us anything > about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other > interpretations yet to be made up, etc. > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are > many worlds). Well, I'd probably add "true as currently understood today". Could also be that this serves as a starting point which will enable some genius to come up with a better explanation. Either saving Einsteins theory, or coming up with a new one. But it's just speculation from my side, so I definitely won't be able to tell you any "hows". > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes. > > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the > Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions that travel at the speed of light or slower. Maybe the Bell inequalities is the part that needs restatement? Sounds like a component in the logical chain that might or might not be susceptible to rethinking or revisioning. > BTW, this is an interesting exercise to go through, to consider, if MW had been proposed first, would anyone have advocated for CI: > > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first > > > Everett's > > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly. > > Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action, > > Spooky action is only implied under collapse theories, which require that collapse be instantaneous across any distance of space in > order to explain the observed results. > There is no spooky action under MW. > > > but > that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple > worlds. > > > It does, if one believes in relativity. For if relativity is true then the only remaining answer to explain the outcome of Aspect's > experiment is many worlds. > > For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it > increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I think the > fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that this > experiment is not conclusive. > > > No one doubts Aspect's result. > > It's just some choose to abandon all that physics has held holy (relativity, causality, determinism, locality, realism, and > time-reversibility) while others, keep those things, read the math of QMs equations literally, and accept the idea that there could > be more than one of them. > > > Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the > other mailinglist? > > I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's archive online? Yes, that's the one. The thread is called Leggetts inequality. Have a look here: https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ . > I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it seems > I got it! > > That's great. I would like to see it. See link above. > > >? ? ? ?> E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally demonstrated > >? ? ? ?> (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum > >? ? ? ?> computer) > > > >? ? ? ?I think here probably. > > > > > > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a > personality > > trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is.? > > Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well > depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I have > very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes, it is > probably a personality trait. > > >? ? ? ?I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that > >? ? ? ?this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads > >? ? ? ?around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand... > >? ? ? ?what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up > >? ? ? ?and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic. > > > >? ? ? ?I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our > >? ? ? ?brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science > >? ? ? ?fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains > >? ? ? ?to experience new realities. ;) > > > > > > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted. > > Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in? =) > > > "One?s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains many possible ?parallel universes?, and that we > have > > selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad > isn?t about > > ?parallel universes?, it?s about universes that are entangled at the finest possible level. And an important > consequence of > > this is that it means we?re not ?stuck in a particular parallel universe?. Instead, we can expect that by somehow > ?changing our > > point of view?, we can effectively find ourselves in a ?different universe?." > > -- Stephen Wolfram in ?The Concept of the Ruliad? (2021) > > Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite science > and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book, and I > would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think. > > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ? Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages! Best regards, Daniel > > Jason? > > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jason > > > > > > > From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 15:30:20 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:30:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. Message-ID: Why Build Megastructures? Just Move Planets Around to Make Habitable Worlds September 25, 2023 by Matt Williams Quote: Dyson?s ideas were proposed at a time when astronomers were unaware of the abundance of exoplanets in our galaxy. The first confirmed exoplanet was not discovered until 1992, and that number has now reached 5,514! ---------- There are many problems with building a Dyson Sphere that are removed by using planets instead. (See article for details). e.g. exposing the sphere to outside cosmic rays, no protection from solar flares, CMEs, solar wind, etc., as there would be no natural magnetic field, no gravity, continuous illumination, etc. They suggest that advanced civilisations wouldn't build Dyson Spheres, We should be looking for unusual clusters of liveable planets in the sun's habitable zone. BillK From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 15:42:47 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:42:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's important to distinguish between Dyson's original conception - a vast constellation of small bodies forming a sphere around a star, and the much more recent concept of a Dyson shell - a solid shell built around a star. With Sufficiently Advanced Technology, you could actually build a Dyson sphere - in the original sense - out of small planetoids with atmospheres and magnetic fields, and get the best of both worlds. You can see a vivid picture of a system like this under construction in the Abstract War chapters of Sam Hughes' "Ra". https://qntm.org/war [Don't read that link unless you're existentially certain you're not going to read the whole thing from the beginning, as it is massively spoilerific. The story is amazing and reading from the beginning is highly recommended.] On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:32?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Why Build Megastructures? Just Move Planets Around to Make Habitable Worlds > September 25, 2023 by Matt Williams > > < > https://www.universetoday.com/163245/why-build-megastructures-just-move-planets-around-to-make-habitable-worlds/ > > > > Quote: > Dyson?s ideas were proposed at a time when astronomers were unaware of > the abundance of exoplanets in our galaxy. The first confirmed > exoplanet was not discovered until 1992, and that number has now > reached 5,514! > ---------- > > There are many problems with building a Dyson Sphere that are removed > by using planets instead. (See article for details). > e.g. exposing the sphere to outside cosmic rays, no protection from > solar flares, CMEs, solar wind, etc., as there would be no natural > magnetic field, no gravity, continuous illumination, etc. > > They suggest that advanced civilisations wouldn't build Dyson Spheres, > We should be looking for unusual clusters of liveable planets in the > sun's habitable zone. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 16:48:15 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 09:48:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a remarkably stupid idea. The amount of laser power needed to move a planet is just crazy, even if you are willing to spend millions of years. if you want living area, rotating space colonies are a much more efficient use of material. If you want to maximize computation, i.e., living area for uploads, you probably don't want to locate in the habitable zone at all. I don't know where this leads to considering the physics, but energy to run the computation is one factor, another big one is getting rid of waste heat, physical material is a consideration and speed of light makes smaller units better by some metric than larger ones. I discussed this at some length years ago, but I am not sure I got the model right. Considering a social species, there does not seem to be an upper limit on how fast they think. But speed of light causes communication delays that limit communicy size. Keith On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:32?AM BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > Why Build Megastructures? Just Move Planets Around to Make Habitable Worlds > September 25, 2023 by Matt Williams > > > > Quote: > Dyson?s ideas were proposed at a time when astronomers were unaware of > the abundance of exoplanets in our galaxy. The first confirmed > exoplanet was not discovered until 1992, and that number has now > reached 5,514! > ---------- > > There are many problems with building a Dyson Sphere that are removed > by using planets instead. (See article for details). > e.g. exposing the sphere to outside cosmic rays, no protection from > solar flares, CMEs, solar wind, etc., as there would be no natural > magnetic field, no gravity, continuous illumination, etc. > > They suggest that advanced civilisations wouldn't build Dyson Spheres, > We should be looking for unusual clusters of liveable planets in the > sun's habitable zone. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Tue Sep 26 17:03:25 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:03:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of Keith Henson via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. This is a remarkably stupid idea. The amount of laser power needed to move a planet is just crazy, even if you are willing to spend millions of years... Keith Laser power is not needed for moving a planet. Reflected waste energy from the star is used for that. Granted it takes not millions but more likely tens of millions of years, and even then only for the smaller planets, such as a tenth of a lunar mass. spike From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 17:37:28 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:37:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: <8c96b055-80d8-88b7-c07e-9e1cd415629a@swisscows.email> References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> <8c96b055-80d8-88b7-c07e-9e1cd415629a@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:52?AM wrote: > Hello Jason, > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR > (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have > > been replicated > > > numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. > > > > But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us > anything > > about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other > > interpretations yet to be made up, etc. > > > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > > > > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then > measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are > > many worlds). > > Well, I'd probably add "true as currently understood today". Perhaps both QM and Relativity are false. But if the only way for them to both be true is with MW. > Could also > be that this serves as a starting point which will enable some genius to > come up with a better explanation. Either saving Einsteins theory, or > coming up with a new one. But it's just speculation from my side, so I > definitely won't be able to tell you any "hows". > > So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either > relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes. > > > > This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need > for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the > > Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local > interactions that travel at the speed of light or slower. > > Maybe the Bell inequalities is the part that needs restatement? Sounds > like a component in the logical chain that might or might not be > susceptible to rethinking or revisioning. > It is a purely mathematical result, written as a mathematical proof. This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg You do not need any advanced math, (just counting and factions), to be able to work out the proof for yourself. This video, a bit longer, shows how anyone could do this themself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RiAxvb_qI4 and see there is no way to get the observed correlations using hidden variables. You either need instantaneous communication or, you must give up the idea that experiments/observations only have single outcomes. > > > BTW, this is an interesting exercise to go through, to consider, if MW > had been proposed first, would anyone have advocated for CI: > > > > > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first > > > > > > Everett's > > > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly. > > > > Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action, > > > > Spooky action is only implied under collapse theories, which require > that collapse be instantaneous across any distance of space in > > order to explain the observed results. > > There is no spooky action under MW. > > > > > > but > > that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple > > worlds. > > > > > > It does, if one believes in relativity. For if relativity is true then > the only remaining answer to explain the outcome of Aspect's > > experiment is many worlds. > > > > For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it > > increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I > think the > > fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that > this > > experiment is not conclusive. > > > > > > No one doubts Aspect's result. > > > > It's just some choose to abandon all that physics has held holy > (relativity, causality, determinism, locality, realism, and > > time-reversibility) while others, keep those things, read the math of > QMs equations literally, and accept the idea that there could > > be more than one of them. > > > > > > Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the > > other mailinglist? > > > > I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's > archive online? > > Yes, that's the one. The thread is called Leggetts inequality. Have a > look here: > https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ . > Thanks, it is interesting. > > > I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it > seems > > I got it! > > > > That's great. I would like to see it. > > See link above. > > > > > > > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been > experimentally demonstrated > > > > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum > > > > computer) > > > > > > I think here probably. > > > > > > > > > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) > burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a > > personality > > > trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is. > > > > Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well > > depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I > have > > very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes, > it is > > probably a personality trait. > > > > > I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I > also think that > > > this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to > wrap our heads > > > around x dimensional things and other universes. On the > other hand... > > > what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be > the "shut up > > > and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) > agnostic. > > > > > > I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new > languages, but our > > > brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into > science > > > fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually > rewires our brains > > > to experience new realities. ;) > > > > > > > > > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted. > > > > Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in? > =) > > > > > "One?s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively > contains many possible ?parallel universes?, and that we > > have > > > selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our > particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad > > isn?t about > > > ?parallel universes?, it?s about universes that are entangled at > the finest possible level. And an important > > consequence of > > > this is that it means we?re not ?stuck in a particular parallel > universe?. Instead, we can expect that by somehow > > ?changing our > > > point of view?, we can effectively find ourselves in a > ?different universe?." > > > -- Stephen Wolfram in ?The Concept of the Ruliad? (2021) > > > > Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite > science > > and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book, > and I > > would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think. > > > > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" > ? > > Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages! > Maybe AI will kindly summarize it for us. ;-) Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 17:38:49 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:38:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> References: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:03?AM wrote: snip > Laser power is not needed for moving a planet. Reflected waste energy from the star is used for that. How about a description? Drexler and I talked about this decades ago and concluded it didn't make sense. Keith > Granted it takes not millions but more likely tens of millions of years, and even then only for the smaller planets, such as a tenth of a lunar mass. > > spike > > > From pharos at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 19:21:29 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 20:21:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> References: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 18:03, wrote: > > Laser power is not needed for moving a planet. Reflected waste energy from the star is used for that. Granted it takes not millions but more likely tens of millions of years, and even then only for the smaller planets, such as a tenth of a lunar mass. > > spike >---------------------------------------- The article and their paper ?Making Habitable Worlds: Planets Versus Megastructures,? does consider using laser arrays for moving planets. They make the point that to get enough material to build a Dyson Sphere you would have to dismantle most of the planets anyway and move the construction material to the habitable zone. Compared with that task, just moving a suitable sized planet or asteroid seems much easier. That also avoids all the problems associated with a Dyson Sphere that they discuss. They seem to be considering expanding to multiple times the population of Earth, so that would require a lot of real estate. Much more than a few space colonies. Although they could have small colonies as well. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 21:13:44 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:13:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: References: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:23?PM BillK via extropy-chat wrote:> snip > The article and their paper ?Making Habitable Worlds: Planets Versus > Megastructures,? > does consider using laser arrays for moving planets. > > They make the point that to get enough material to build a Dyson > Sphere you would have to dismantle most of the planets anyway and move > the construction material to the habitable zone. Maybe, but I doubt it. I have not seen or set up the model, but I suspect building in the computational zone is far more likely. > Compared with that > task, just moving a suitable sized planet or asteroid seems much > easier. Please try to keep track of the scales involved. Earth is about 6 x 10 ^24. The asteroid Bennu is around 7.3 x 10 ^10. Moving a planet with a laser is about 10 ^14 more difficult. > That also avoids all the problems associated with a Dyson > Sphere that they discuss. > > They seem to be considering expanding to multiple times the population > of Earth, so that would require a lot of real estate. Much more than a > few space colonies. Although they could have small colonies as well. The classic calculation about this is that O'Neill-type colonies constructed from asteroids could provide about 2,000 times the area of Earth. That assumes, of course, human-type bodies that need air, gravity, food, etc. If you are trying to provide living space for biological humans, piling the matter up to provide gravity is just a horrible way to do it. Using the tensile strength of materials to enclose spinning habitats is far more efficient. Keith > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Wed Sep 27 00:50:31 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (Gregory Jones) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 17:50:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dyson Sphere? Why? Just move planets into Habitable Zone. In-Reply-To: References: <00dc01d9f09b$5ddaae70$19900b50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: OK. Imagine a kind of a flattened donut shaped cloud of devices shaped like a disc, about 100 micron diameter and 100 nanometer thickness. These devices have three patches on them, like a single pixel of an LCD on a watch. These can be either reflective or absorptive, so the light pressure on them varies according to whether they are reflective or absorptive. Having three of them spaced at 120 degrees equidistant from the CG of the device means it can hold any orientation with respect to the star about which it orbits. Back to the donut shaped cloud of these devices, orbiting a small planet. Imagine that planet is too close to its star and the orbiting devices want to move it outboard. The discs orient themselves to reflect photons in the direction from which the planet has come, so that it directs momentum in such a way as to cause the planet-particulate cloud system to gradually accumulate angular momentum from the photons. In a few million years, the planet has moved away from the star a few million km, out to the more comfortable zone. One can move a star that way too: orbiting refective discs, individually steerable, forming a series of concentric spherical shells, reflecting light in the same direction, so that the star accumulates the momentum of its photons, and gradually accelerates in the opposite direction it reflects its light. Moving a star that way takes a while, a few tens of millions of years perhaps. But what's the hurry? spike spike On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 2:15?PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:23?PM BillK via extropy-chat > wrote:> > > snip > > > The article and their paper ?Making Habitable Worlds: Planets Versus > > Megastructures,? > > does consider using laser arrays for moving planets. > > > > They make the point that to get enough material to build a Dyson > > Sphere you would have to dismantle most of the planets anyway and move > > the construction material to the habitable zone. > > Maybe, but I doubt it. I have not seen or set up the model, but I > suspect building in the computational zone is far more likely. > > > Compared with that > > task, just moving a suitable sized planet or asteroid seems much > > easier. > > Please try to keep track of the scales involved. Earth is about 6 x > 10 ^24. The asteroid Bennu is around 7.3 x 10 ^10. > > Moving a planet with a laser is about 10 ^14 more difficult. > > > That also avoids all the problems associated with a Dyson > > Sphere that they discuss. > > > > They seem to be considering expanding to multiple times the population > > of Earth, so that would require a lot of real estate. Much more than a > > few space colonies. Although they could have small colonies as well. > > The classic calculation about this is that O'Neill-type colonies > constructed from asteroids could provide about 2,000 times the area of > Earth. That assumes, of course, human-type bodies that need air, > gravity, food, etc. > > If you are trying to provide living space for biological humans, > piling the matter up to provide gravity is just a horrible way to do > it. Using the tensile strength of materials to enclose spinning > habitats is far more efficient. > > Keith > > > > > > BillK > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 27 10:29:47 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:29:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Summary of "A New Kind of Science" Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 18:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ? >> Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages! > > Maybe AI will kindly summarize it for us. ;-) > Jason > _______________________________________________ OK, So I asked an AI to summarize this book. It took about 30 seconds.......... BillK ------------------------------------------ A Summary of "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram *Overview:* "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram, published in 2002, is a groundbreaking exploration of the science of computation and complex systems. In this book, Wolfram presents his revolutionary idea that simple computer programs can generate highly complex behavior, challenging the traditional notion that complexity arises from complicated underlying principles. Through a combination of empirical observations, computer simulations, and mathematical analysis, he argues that simple rules can produce a vast array of complex and unpredictable phenomena. *Key Takeaways:* 1. *The Computational Universe:* Wolfram suggests that the computational universe, governed by simple computational rules, underlies many natural processes and can explain complex phenomena observed in various fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and social systems. This computational perspective offers a new paradigm for understanding the world around us. 2. *Cellular Automata:* Cellular automata are simple computational models consisting of a grid of cells, where each cell evolves over time based on its neighbors' states and a set of fixed rules. Wolfram investigates a wide range of cellular automata, emphasizing their ability to generate complexity, patterns, and even behaviors similar to those found in nature. 3. *Universality and Rule 110:* Wolfram introduces the concept of universality, where a simple rule can give rise to complex behavior. He demonstrates that Rule 110, a specific cellular automaton, is Turing complete, meaning it can perform any computation that any computer can. This finding challenges the prevailing notion that complexity requires sophisticated systems. 4. *Emergence and Computational Irreducibility:* Wolfram explores the notion of emergent behavior, where complex patterns arise from the interactions of simple components. He introduces the concept of computational irreducibility, suggesting that the behavior of complex systems cannot be predicted or simplified, even with complete knowledge of their rules. This has profound implications for understanding the limits of scientific predictability. 5. *Applications and Implications:* Wolfram discusses potential applications of his ideas across various domains. He argues that his computational approach can advance our understanding of physics, genetics, economics, and other fields. He also presents the idea that the computational universe may be inherently creative, and this insight could have implications for artificial intelligence, technology, and the nature of human creativity. *Practical Applications:* While "A New Kind of Science" primarily focuses on theoretical concepts and their implications, it hints at several practical applications. These include: - *Physics:* Applying Wolfram's computational approach to physics could lead to new insights into fundamental physical laws and the nature of the universe at its most basic level. - *Biology:* By understanding how simple rules can generate complex biological phenomena, Wolfram suggests that his ideas could provide new perspectives on genetics, evolution, and the behavior of biological systems. - *Economics:* The study of complex systems and emergent behavior has implications for understanding economic systems and predicting their behavior. Wolfram's ideas could potentially shed light on economic patterns and help develop more robust economic models. - *Artificial Intelligence:* Wolfram's perspective on the computational nature of the universe and the potential for creative behavior suggests that new approaches to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic art could be explored. *Conclusion:* "A New Kind of Science" presents a groundbreaking exploration of the science of computation and complex systems. Wolfram challenges traditional notions, demonstrating that simple computational rules can generate complexity and emergent behavior. By considering the world through the lens of computation, he opens up new possibilities for understanding various fields and suggests potential applications in physics, biology, economics, and artificial intelligence. This book offers a paradigm shift in our understanding of complexity and provides a foundation for further exploration into the computational nature of the universe. ------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Wed Sep 27 12:28:13 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 14:28:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Summary of "A New Kind of Science" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much Bill, you sure saved me a lot of time. ;) Best regards, Daniel On Wed, 27 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 18:39, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > > > >> > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ? > >> Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages! > > > > Maybe AI will kindly summarize it for us. ;-) > > Jason > > _______________________________________________ > > > OK, So I asked an AI to summarize this book. > It took about 30 seconds.......... > > BillK > ------------------------------------------ > > > > A SUMMARY OF "A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE" BY STEPHEN WOLFRAM > > Overview: > > "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram, published in 2002, is a groundbreaking exploration of the science of computation and > complex systems. In this book, Wolfram presents his revolutionary idea that simple computer programs can generate highly complex > behavior, challenging the traditional notion that complexity arises from complicated underlying principles. Through a combination of > empirical observations, computer simulations, and mathematical analysis, he argues that simple rules can produce a vast array of > complex and unpredictable phenomena. > > Key Takeaways: > > 1. The Computational Universe: Wolfram suggests that the computational universe, governed by simple computational rules, underlies > many natural processes and can explain complex phenomena observed in various fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and > social systems. This computational perspective offers a new paradigm for understanding the world around us. > 2. Cellular Automata: Cellular automata are simple computational models consisting of a grid of cells, where each cell evolves over > time based on its neighbors' states and a set of fixed rules. Wolfram investigates a wide range of cellular automata, emphasizing > their ability to generate complexity, patterns, and even behaviors similar to those found in nature. > 3. Universality and Rule 110: Wolfram introduces the concept of universality, where a simple rule can give rise to complex behavior. > He demonstrates that Rule 110, a specific cellular automaton, is Turing complete, meaning it can perform any computation that any > computer can. This finding challenges the prevailing notion that complexity requires sophisticated systems. > 4. Emergence and Computational Irreducibility: Wolfram explores the notion of emergent behavior, where complex patterns arise from > the interactions of simple components. He introduces the concept of computational irreducibility, suggesting that the behavior of > complex systems cannot be predicted or simplified, even with complete knowledge of their rules. This has profound implications > for understanding the limits of scientific predictability. > 5. Applications and Implications: Wolfram discusses potential applications of his ideas across various domains. He argues that his > computational approach can advance our understanding of physics, genetics, economics, and other fields. He also presents the idea > that the computational universe may be inherently creative, and this insight could have implications for artificial intelligence, > technology, and the nature of human creativity. > > Practical Applications: > > While "A New Kind of Science" primarily focuses on theoretical concepts and their implications, it hints at several practical > applications. These include: > > * Physics: Applying Wolfram's computational approach to physics could lead to new insights into fundamental physical laws and the > nature of the universe at its most basic level. > * Biology: By understanding how simple rules can generate complex biological phenomena, Wolfram suggests that his ideas could > provide new perspectives on genetics, evolution, and the behavior of biological systems. > * Economics: The study of complex systems and emergent behavior has implications for understanding economic systems and predicting > their behavior. Wolfram's ideas could potentially shed light on economic patterns and help develop more robust economic models. > * Artificial Intelligence: Wolfram's perspective on the computational nature of the universe and the potential for creative > behavior suggests that new approaches to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic art could be explored. > > Conclusion: > > "A New Kind of Science" presents a groundbreaking exploration of the science of computation and complex systems. Wolfram challenges > traditional notions, demonstrating that simple computational rules can generate complexity and emergent behavior. By considering the > world through the lens of computation, he opens up new possibilities for understanding various fields and suggests potential > applications in physics, biology, economics, and artificial intelligence. This book offers a paradigm shift in our understanding of > complexity and provides a foundation for further exploration into the computational nature of the universe. > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > From efc at swisscows.email Wed Sep 27 13:02:14 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:02:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] teachers In-Reply-To: References: <08cb7ed2-3c84-f68a-ee15-856038aa9dcb@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <66bfcbb1-466f-e1b2-b9c0-c9e9cdf7e0f5@swisscows.email> Hello Jason, I think slowly we've reached the point where the energy of this thread has exhausted itself. It has been very valuable and I thank you for all the examples and things you taught me! =) I'll make a few concluding remarks below, and then I think we'll get started on solving the problem of "The Meaning of Life (C)" once and for all! ;) On Sun, 24 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > Then I don't think our positions are too far off. I don't?ask?for any belief > > or acceptance of some idea as some final truth. Rather, > > I see all ideas as having some probability/confidence we might ascribe to > > them. And even in such cases when an idea happens to be > > true we can never know it is true. > > Yes, it does seem like we're not that far apart. One difference is our > subjective probabilities, and the other is the realism/anti-realism > aspect, although, I don't have a fixed position and am somewhere between > the two anti-realism positions. Probably an interesting topic for > another thread to try and decide on a position there. =) > > Isn't anti-realism a kind of idealism? And previously you seemed to have a strong objection to idealism. Sorry, what I mean to say was instrumentalism or constructive empiricism, I was thinking "not realism" as in scientific realism, sorry for the confusion. > > I think a nice way to think about theories (especially if one comes from a > > computing background) is to think of them as functions. > > A prediction then, is equivalent to evaluating a function for some situation > > x: y = F(x). > > Then "y", the output of the function, is what we might call that function's > > "prediction". > > The only thing we have assumed (or postulated) here is the validity of F() > > for the situation x. > > Well, if we decouple it from the real world, and treat it as a function > (pure mathematics) then yes, I think that's valid. If a part of the > function is verification, then sometimes the function in this reality > doesn't compute. Or do I misunderstand you? > > I am not sure how to parse that exactly, but I will try to restate it in another way. > We assume theories and their validity for certain domains. > A theory is a mathematical abstraction, not unlike a particular function in mathematics. > We test theories by using them to make predictions (but plugging an input 'x' into the function, and seeing it's output 'y', which is > what that theory says we should see), and then we make an observation of reality and compare that observation O with the prediction > y. If they disagree, either there was some experimental error, or the theory is invalid. If they agree, then the theory has passed a > test, and we can increase our confidence in the validity of the theory. > > We can always compute the function for any given "x" value to get a prediction. However, not all x values are practical or possible > to test. For instance, testing whether a 1-ton diamond falls with the same acceleration predicted by the theory. Or testing whether > antimatter falls. It is too difficult/expensive to gather enough antimatter and contain it reliably, to perform this "drop test." In > other cases, the "y" is an observation we are unable to make, so we cannot compare the prediction of a theory to reality. For > example, observing the insides of black holes (and making it back out again to report what was seen), or observing the electron go > through the other slit (that the person in the other branch would have seen). > > Any theory you might imagine, even something universally accepted like "F = ma" will have limitations on our ability to test (for > example, testing this theory for masses greater than the mass of the observable universe is impossible in principle), and it remains > uncertain whether this function has any validity for negative or imaginary masses. > > So this is why I don't find it especially troubling when a theory has portions of its domain or range that are unverifiable. As long > as there are portions of its range that do intersect with observable reality, then we can establish some confidence in the validity > of the theory (even though there may always remain an infinite number of untested or untestable predictions of that theory). Ah, got it. Yes, that makes sense. > I do agree, with the difference that the prediction is about our > space, which we theoretically could explore, as physical beings moving > through space. So my probability of belief does assign some value to it > and that value is higher than for predictions generating ideas outside > of our universe. > > But those places beyond the horizon *are outside* our universe, because space is expanding faster than light, these places will > forever be causally disconnected and isolated from our local observable universe. We can never affect them, nor they ever affect us. > They are causally empty/impotent predictions of relativity. Agreed. Without putting nr on it, I wonder if it makes sense to rank "beyond the observable horizon of this universe" ahead in the confidence league, of MWI? Both are definitely at the fringes, but ahead of our observable horizons, is still part of this universe at least, but yes, low scores non the less. > ? > > > > > > Can a true agnostic (who neither accepts or rejects any theory) even do > > physics? If you give a theory-agnostic physicist a physics > > problem to solve, how does he or she?decide which theory to use to make a > > prediction? If the??theory-agnostic physicist chooses a > > particular theory to use to make a prediction, is that not a form of > > acceptance of the theory? It seems to me the true agnostic must > > refuse to take any action or make any prediction. > > I think that depends on what the agnostic believes the theory to be. If > it is a tool with the purpose of making predictions and navigating our > world, the agnostic can freely use any tools, since the tool is not the > world itself. It's just a thought construct that takes input and > generates output. > > But what motivates the agnostic to believe a theory will work, unless that theory describes something that is real? If the theory doesn't describe anything real, a true agnostic I guess could only be motivated by the simple pleasure and intellectual challenge of playing around with the theory. It couldbe aesthetical reasons, or pure income related reasons for doing it. > If that output can be verfied, it is elevated to > something close to knowledge and stops being belief. Those theories do > yield extrapolations when they are interpreted in certain ways, that go > beyond our world, and the true agnostic ignores those extrapolations. HE > might engage in them in order to try and prove them, but if they are per > definition outside our world, I do not think he would waste his time and > let nobler creatures fight those battles. > > What is interesting though is the decision to ignore the "extra" for the > time being, or assign it some probability. But then the question is, if > it is meaningful to play with probabilities when it comes to things > outside our world or if that only risks trapping you in the theory. > > I don't see any risk of becoming trapped in a theory. A theory we can accept as a tentative description of reality (which may be true > or false). > We can ask what a theory (which may be widely regarded as true) says about a larger reality (which we may or may not be in a position > to see). At least, I see no reason we should not be able to ask these things of otherwise well-tested, well-accepted, well-confirmed, > theories. General Relativity fits this category, and I see no reason we can't ask this theory what it says about the minimum size of > the universe compared to our observable part of the universe. I think your key word here is "tentative". I was thinking about more dogmatic people who mistake the theory for the real thing and thus get trapped. As long as it is tentative, and ones mind is open, I agree that any questions may be asked. Then I guess it comes down to ones individual beliefs about our world and what knowledge we can (or cannot) possess about it, that determine if one chooses to ask those questions or not. My feeling is after reading more skeptical threads about MWI and interpretations in general, that there exists a set of physicists who do not like or enjoy to engage in what they think is "idle speculation". But I think, like we discussed earlier, that what is impossible today, might be possible tomorrow, so to dogmatically just refuse might risk us not stumbling upon something which will unlock new secrets of nature. > > There are three categories of > > predictions:?https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg > > 1. Tested > > 2. Testable but not yet tested > > 3. Not testable > > #1 of course deserves our greatest credence, but I see no reason to > > distinguish credence between #2 and #3. > > I think 3 is definitely below 2, since it loses any grounding in the > world, and is of no use. > > I don't see utility as having any bearing on veracity. Well, that's a philosophical question and position. I'd say that the pragmatists out there very much embrace the notion that utility and veracity are related. > > Empirical evidence concerns what is observable. I would agree, that if for > > example, there was a theory that made no observable > > predictions whatsoever, it would not be a scientific theory and would not be > > worthy of our time to discuss. But this is not the case > > concerning any of these theories (QM, GR, Inflation, etc.) They all make > > predictions we can, and have, tested empirically. > > Yes, but as you say, the empirical is a non-problem. When > interpretations try and "cross over", that's when the fun starts. > > I think we need an agreed upon definition for "interpretation". I think one definition I saw in a thread is that an interpretation is an attempt to explain the theory in terms of human language, in a way that does not add anything to the underlying theory. That person argued that MWI does not add anything to QM, so thus is an interpretation of the QM theory (the pure math). That was his definition among many. > Maybe this is an additional point of confusion and difference? The > status of theory vs interpretation? > > Let me make an attempt at definitions: > > 1. Theory: A framework (usually mathematical) for making predictions concerning future observations, given an initial starting state > or configuration. > > 2. Interpretation: A particular way of understanding, explaining, or conceptualizing the underlying pure mathematics of a theory. > > > Do these seem good to you? Do you have any suggested changes or improvements? No, I think that's a good starting point. > To give you another example "In fact, the only claim made by this > interpretation is that there is no collapse of the wavefunction. There > is just a universal wavefunction that evolves unitarily. The rest is for > future physicists and philosophers to try to understand". > > (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/653331/how-real-are-the-worlds-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation) > > I tried to find the text where the author did not like the fact that it > is interpretation and not theory but couldn't find it. The quote above > kind of touches on the spirit of that text at least. > > Yes, I think in that sense, neither CI, nor MWI are interpretations. They are, properly speaking, different theories. Where MW is the > conventionally accepted math of existing QM, and Copenhagen is some other (not yet defined) mathematics that describes when/how the > Shrodinger equation stops being followed. Wouldn't you say that MWI is then an interpretation while CI is a new theory? > Then, the things that you might call "interpretations" would relate?to things like "Is the wave function physically real or just some > non-real mathematical abstraction". They are two different ways of interpreting the same equation, which have no mathematical > difference, and are only different on account of the different language and words we surround those mathematical entities with. That makes sense to me. > > > We know what the equations of QM say, and all interpretations say the same thing: > We get a massive superposition of, let's say, billions of simultaneous simulations of the brain, each experiencing a different input. > * CI says: while all these billions of brain simulations exist and were simulated, once we interact with the quantum computer all > but 1 disappears. (but it does not deny that they billions of separate brain computations *did* exist) > * MW says: while all these billions of brain simulations exist and were simulated, once we interact with the quantum computer, we > entangle our state with the superposition and become superposed ourself, such that we get a corresponding copy of ourself > corresponding to each of the billions of individual simulated brain states. > There is no mystery, question, or disagreement between MW and CI until such time that we measure/interact with the quantum computer, > because before such time, there is no wave function collapse. > > ? > What > you say is hand waving, I interpret as many view points, the agnostic > one being one of them like the quote above. > > > If you think any part of what I said is hand waving, simply ask for clarification on any point and I would be happy to delve deeper. No, in terms of MWI there has been no hand waving. What I mean to say is the other interpretations. I think some source said they are hand waving away things, while MWI actually tries to explain them. My interpretation is that the other explain things in their way, that MWI:ers find unsatisfactory, and I am sure that they find things about MWI unsatisfactory. That is what I meant to say above. > >? ? ? ?Among the many ways it > >? ? ? ?could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it > >? ? ? ?could work. > > > > Look at the explanations the AI gave under different assumed interpretations. > > Did you find the explanation assuming CI satisfactory? > > Due to my lack of the underlying equations, I would not trust myself to > judge, except for the fact, that I do feel more inclinved to believe > theories which do not postulate multiple worlds. > > The theory does not postulate multiple worlds. > > We postulate the theory itself, which in this case is QM. > > The multiple worlds are predictions of this theory. This is true both in CI and MW. Got it! So at the moment, I would then be closer to the theory itself, and still in a state of suspended judgement, or small or unknown probabilities of belief when it comes to the interpretations. But I think it is a key thing here to keep in mind that the theory itself does not postulate multiple worlds. Sometimes it feels as if this is exactly what some people think, but in reality, multiple worlds is an interpretation of the theory. > The only difference between CI and MW concerns what happens to these worlds when a measurement is made. CI says all but one > disappear, MW says they continue to exist. > > The quantum computer is particularly useful to highlight this difference, because quantum computers permit us to delay the > measurement/collapse for arbitrarily?long times, and to perform arbitrarily complex computations/operations, completely free of > measurement/collapse. And I do agree that the collapse does seem arbitrary, and I do agree, that from an aesthetic point of view, getting rid of arbitrariness is nice. At the same time, perhaps it can be explained by a follower of CI in a way that makes it just as elegant, but I do not, based on our discussion, see how that could be. > >? ? ? ?Here is one example: > > > >? ? ? ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments > > > > I don't think anything there is specific to Bohm's interpretation. I see > > Bohm's interpretation as entirely philosophical. It admits > > the existence of all the parallel histories, it just says that only one of > > them is "really real" and that the unfortunate souls in > > the branches that aren't really real are not really conscious. > > Well, that's one example that shows that the various interpretations > have their own ways of believing they can prove one or the other. > Correctly or incorrectly, they do exist. > > Hmm. I am not sure how to resolve this. It seems incompatible with what is said here (which was my understanding), that BM gives > identical predictions to QM: > * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/78x6e0/ive_heard_that_bohmian_mechanics_aka_pilot_wave/ > I do not understand the intricacies of BM well enough to say whether or not that is true, but perhaps you can find some BM expert who > claims the theory does make different predictions, in which case it would not be an interpretation, but its own theory. I'd love to find a BM expert, but like you, I am forced to "shrug my shoulders". =( > > I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of > > departure between our views with regards to this subject. > > I don't know if we should start that one now, or let this one run its > course first? > > Let's start it. I am not sure how much longer this one can continue. We already seem to be recovering the same ground. Agreed! =) One meaning of life coming up! ;) > > > I am curious but also pressed for time, so I don't know when I would have > > time to read them. I will take a look though. > > Will send you off list, and just put them on the virtual reading list. > ;) > > > Thank you! You're welcome! =) > > Is Halo airing again or is there just one season? > > No, just one season. Since I have never played the game I enjoy it. But > I suspect hard core fans will most likely not enjoy it. > > I liked it. Me too! Was positively surprised, since I thought it would be difficult to make movies out of first person shooter games. I'm not a big fan of computer games (I was, but somehow after university when life got in the way, computer game playing stopped) but was pleasantly surprised! I wonder if they will make a series based on monkey island next? ;) > I think that was when they got a new team of writers. I wonder when we'll see the first purely AI written super hit series? =) > Strange! I haven't heard about string theory in a long while. > > There hasn't been much progress. I think it has made two predictions so far. The first is that there should be a force like gravity, > and second, that the mass of particles is something that when multiplied by zero, is zero. Well, we'll see what the string guys will come up with. Maybe there will be some surprises yet! > > Good point. We might also observe that 99.9% of scientific theories have been > > proven wrong, so on this empirical basis then, we > > should never have any high confidence in our theories. ?? > > Aha... spoken like a true agnostic! Did I just convert you? ;) > > Perhaps. But the other thing to note, is that when long-tested physical theories are wrong, they're usually only "exceptionally > wrong", but usually still "approximately correct". > QM might not be the final answer, but I think much of its implications would survive in any more-correct new theory. A good point! > > The concept would not exist, but would it's truth exist? > > As long as there is a mind to evaluate the truth, yes. Without minds, > just matter. > > > I think that is consistent. > > I agree something has to be primitively real, but I am not as certain as you that it must be matter. I think an even better case can > be made for math. Well, at least we can camp out in the monist camp together! ;) > > So when there is objective agreement between two subjects, why then do we > > admit the chemical element as part of reality but not these > > other objects which we can also objectively study? > > If you mean math, it is just have the properties of the physical world > is thought about by the beings. Without the beings, that languages and > its truth values, lose all meaning. Only matter is left. > > Or maybe not even matter???? Good point! Perhaps not even matter. > > > >? ? ? ?Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has meaning > >? ? ? ?when being interpreted by human consciousness. > > > > You could say the same thing about matter, could you not? > > Yes, if everything is doubted, of course. But as Wigner said, matter is > the most practical way and assumption, that leads to massive benefits, > so I don't see any reason why I should doubt matter. > > I don't ask you to doubt matter. Only to question your belief that matter is what is most fundamental (and not derivative of > something more primitive). Well, perhaps I come off as more certain than I am. Rest assured, that you make me think a lot about why I believe the things I believe. ;) One of the valuable benefits of thing long discussion! > > But as Godel showed, there is no final (or finite) set of rules that accounts > > for all mathematical truth. We must constantly strive > > to develop ever more powerful theories of mathematical objects, just as > > physicists must always strive to develop better more powerful > > theories in physics. This again, suggests to me, that mathematical truth is > > not a human invention but something infinite and beyond > > ourselves. It is something we study, much like we study the physical world. > > Well, based on my opinions above, I do not share that point of view. > > I'm not sure how is is something that can be the subject of opinion. There's a mathematical proof (widely considered the greatest > mathematical discovery of past the century) that shows this opinion is no longer tenable. No, the proof I agree with, it is the interpretation I do not agree with. > I > believe it is an invention only meaningful when interpreted by > consciousness. > > I am surprised then that you did not agree with my meaning of life article, whose principle claim was that all meaning reduces to > states of consciousness. We'll see. Maybe I was too quick when reading it. > > We've covered so much it is hard to say what the topic would be.? ?? > > If there is any overriding theme, it is the tension between scientific > > realism and "empirical confirmationism" if that phrase makes > > sense. > > Yes, I agree. I think that is one fundamental tension. Also we touched > on identity and idealism vs materialism. Maybe a good title would be > "How not to do philosophy"? ;) > > Best regards, Daniel > > > Best, > > Jason? Thank you for this very rewarding discussion! =) Best regards, Daniel From efc at swisscows.email Wed Sep 27 13:05:07 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:05:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Criticisms of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) In-Reply-To: References: <2f276a48-b059-e898-121a-d974cacde616@swisscows.email> <8c96b055-80d8-88b7-c07e-9e1cd415629a@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Hello Jason, On Tue, 26 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote: > > >? ? ? ?> I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky action, and violation of Bell's > inequalities) have > >? ? ? ?been replicated > >? ? ? ?> numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year. > > > >? ? ? ?But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us anything > >? ? ? ?about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other > >? ? ? ?interpretations yet to be made up, etc. > > > > It tells us one thing quite clearly: > > > > If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., > there are > > many worlds). > > Well, I'd probably add "true as currently understood today". > > Perhaps both QM and Relativity are false. But if the only way for them to both be true is with MW. Well, we only have four options here! ;) Time will tell! > Maybe the Bell inequalities is the part that needs restatement? Sounds > like a component in the logical chain that might or might not be > susceptible to rethinking or revisioning. > > It is a purely mathematical result, written as a mathematical proof. This video explains it > well:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg > You do not need any advanced math, (just counting and factions), to be able to work out the proof for yourself. This video, a bit > longer, shows how anyone could do this themself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RiAxvb_qI4 and see there is no way to get the > observed correlations using hidden variables. You either need instantaneous communication or, you must give up the idea that > experiments/observations only have single outcomes. Thank you Jason, added to the list. > > I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's archive online? > > Yes, that's the one. The thread is called Leggetts inequality. Have a > look here: > https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ . > > Thanks, it is interesting. You're welcome! > > I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ? > > Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages! > > Maybe AI will kindly summarize it for us. ;-) It sure did a nice job (I hope!). ;) Best regards, Daniel > > Jason > > > From efc at swisscows.email Wed Sep 27 21:17:47 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 23:17:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) Message-ID: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Good evening everyone, Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as an object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be told which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply personal and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express and feel it. The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that brings you peace as an individual. But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such things. But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics talk about. That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations. Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? Best regards, Daniel From tara at taramayastales.com Thu Sep 28 00:20:49 2023 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:20:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Out breeding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2FC91167-881D-4AD7-95B9-BC13FA2F08C7@taramayastales.com> I assume humans could figure it out the same as other animals, not through cognition but through evolution. The thing I find odd about our species is that the females leave the pack and travel. In almost all mammals, males leave and travel to find females. This is because females provide the majority of childcare. For humans to have reversed it implies that human males, or at least the parents of human males, provide a great deal more childcare than in most extant mammals. In fact, I think grandparents are even more rare than male child-care patterns. Tara Maya > On Sep 24, 2023, at 8:34 PM, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > (About 4600 years ago.) > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/nov/18/archaeology-germany-dna-nuclear-family > > " The team also examined evidence of where the people had grown up by > analysing the combination of different forms of strontium in their > teeth. The ratio of strontium isotopes depends on a person's diet > during childhood and reflects the dominant rock types in the area. > While the men and children had a strontium profile that indicates they > were raised nearby, the women came from outside the area. > > " Pike said this was evidence of a patrilocal society, where families > "married out" their daughters, either to avoid inbreeding or build > allegiances with neighbours." > > Some time ago I read a detailed account with more individuals. > > But the thing that amazed me is that people had figured out long ago > that inbreeding was a bad idea and went to considerable trouble to > avoid it. (Like importing wives from a long distance.) > > I wonder if they did the same with farm animals. > > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 02:48:52 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 19:48:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Out breeding In-Reply-To: <2FC91167-881D-4AD7-95B9-BC13FA2F08C7@taramayastales.com> References: <2FC91167-881D-4AD7-95B9-BC13FA2F08C7@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 5:22?PM Tara Maya via extropy-chat wrote: > > I assume humans could figure it out the same as other animals, not through cognition but through evolution. > > The thing I find odd about our species is that the females leave the pack and travel. I know that females of chimps and bonobos leave. Not certain about gorillas, but I think they do as well. > In almost all mammals, males leave and travel to find females. This is because females provide the majority of childcare. For humans to have reversed it implies that human males, or at least the parents of human males, provide a great deal more childcare than in most extant mammals. In fact, I think grandparents are even more rare than male child-care patterns. I appreciate your keen awareness of the problem. But the same pattern occurs with the other two closely related species and those males provide little or no childcare. To avoid inbreeding, one sex or both has to change groups. The thing that impresses me is that for prehistoric humans where we have DNA data it seems to be highly organized. Eventually, the origin of the women who moved to these groups will be determined. I wonder how far they traveled to find mates? Also, if there were women moving in the opposite direction. I doubt there was a lot of coercion involved because the imported women were often buried with grave goods indicating high status. Keith > Tara Maya > > > > > On Sep 24, 2023, at 8:34 PM, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > (About 4600 years ago.) > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/nov/18/archaeology-germany-dna-nuclear-family > > > > " The team also examined evidence of where the people had grown up by > > analysing the combination of different forms of strontium in their > > teeth. The ratio of strontium isotopes depends on a person's diet > > during childhood and reflects the dominant rock types in the area. > > While the men and children had a strontium profile that indicates they > > were raised nearby, the women came from outside the area. > > > > " Pike said this was evidence of a patrilocal society, where families > > "married out" their daughters, either to avoid inbreeding or build > > allegiances with neighbours." > > > > Some time ago I read a detailed account with more individuals. > > > > But the thing that amazed me is that people had figured out long ago > > that inbreeding was a bad idea and went to considerable trouble to > > avoid it. (Like importing wives from a long distance.) > > > > I wonder if they did the same with farm animals. > > > > > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 11:34:19 2023 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Data sim in San Francisco Message-ID: I am coming to San Francisco 12 oct and I wonder which network I should choose to best satisfy my cravings for data. Just WiFi from hotels etc such is insufficient when walking and also VPN often come in conflict with the more public WiFi. Any suggestions? My last time in SF was -97 at the Extro 3 and I look forward to sampling SF without being a severely cash restricted student. Then there was an energetic discussion about personal or ubiquitous computing. Personal computing albeit in a boring format seems to have won and I am severely addicted to the resulting data glutt. /Henrik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 12:55:49 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:55:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 22:20, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > Good evening everyone, > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > > When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as an > object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be told > which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply personal > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express > and feel it. > > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that > brings you peace as an individual. > > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. > > > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > > Best regards, Daniel > _______________________________________________ Hi Daniel I think you have two discussions here. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is popular in Western psychology. But it has also been criticised for misleading stages of needs and being too biased towards Western culture. The other discussion is the meaning of life, that has kept philosophers busy for thousands of years. Basically, it is a 'Choose your Philosophy' discussion. :) I don't think you will reach any agreement on this, especially as we like to pick and mix our favourite parts of all the philosophical systems! BillK From efc at swisscows.email Thu Sep 28 13:08:20 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:08:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Hello Bill, On Thu, 28 SBep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > I think you have two discussions here. Most likely, or even more. I thought I'd start broad, and then narrow it down. =) > Maslow's hierarchy of needs is popular in Western psychology. > But it has also been criticised for misleading stages of needs and > being too biased towards Western culture. Yes, I know it is criticised, but I do think it is a good framework to start from when talking about different levels of meaning for different stages of life. Do you have any suggestions for a better framework? > The other discussion is the meaning of life, that has kept > philosophers busy for thousands of years. Amen! > Basically, it is a 'Choose your Philosophy' discussion. :) If you so choose! ;) Maybe there is one ultimate meaning (TM)? > I don't think you will reach any agreement on this, especially as we > like to pick and mix our favourite parts of all the philosophical > systems! Has there ever been any unanimous agreement? Perhaps, as Admiral Akbar says "it's a trap!". ;) Thank you very much for your input never the less. =) Best regards, Daniel > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From pharos at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 13:32:06 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:32:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 14:10, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > Hello Bill, > > On Thu, 28 SBep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > > I think you have two discussions here. > > Most likely, or even more. I thought I'd start broad, and then narrow it > down. =) > > > Maslow's hierarchy of needs is popular in Western psychology. > > But it has also been criticised for misleading stages of needs and > > being too biased towards Western culture. > > Yes, I know it is criticised, but I do think it is a good framework to > start from when talking about different levels of meaning for different > stages of life. > > Do you have any suggestions for a better framework? > > > The other discussion is the meaning of life, that has kept > > philosophers busy for thousands of years. > > Amen! > > > Basically, it is a 'Choose your Philosophy' discussion. :) > > If you so choose! ;) Maybe there is one ultimate meaning (TM)? > > > I don't think you will reach any agreement on this, especially as we > > like to pick and mix our favourite parts of all the philosophical > > systems! > > Has there ever been any unanimous agreement? Perhaps, as Admiral Akbar > says "it's a trap!". ;) > > Thank you very much for your input never the less. =) > > Best regards, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ Perhaps one of these? Quote: There are a number of alternative theories to Maslow?s hierarchy of needs, including: ERG theory Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory) Self-determination theory McClellan?s Human Motivation Theory Nain model Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs) ----------------------- BillK From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 14:04:26 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:04:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 5:19 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening everyone, > > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > I like that spirit! > When it comes to the meaning of life, I find it helps to start with a definition to make sure everyone is on the same page. For the purposes of what I write below, I am using "meaning" in the sense of reason, purpose, and value. So the question of the meaning of life is to ask, what purpose, of any, is there in living? What value, if any, is there in living? For what reason, if any, are we here? I believe that it cannot be found as an > object in the world, I take this to mean it's not a physical object. But could it be a realizable state in this world, i.e., a state of mind or a state of consciousness? and I do not believe that it is something that can be told > which would instantly create meaning. Do you think it is describable at all? I think that meaning is deeply personal > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to > express > and feel it. > I would say all intrinsicly meaningful (valuable) things, or in other words, anything that is meaningful/valuable on its own, are states of awareness / consciousness. Those things that are "instrumentally meaningful" are valuable only in so far as their potential to affect states of consciousness. "It there appeared that we could not, on reflection, maintain anything to be intrinsically and ultimately good, except in so far as it entered into relation to consciousness of some kind and rendered good and desirable: and thus that the only ultimate Good, or End in itself, must be Goodness or Excellence of Conscious Life." -- Henry Sidgwick in ?The Methods of Ethics? (1874) "Finding [an answer to consciousness] matters: indeed, one could argue that nothing else could ever matter more ? since anything at all that matters, in life, only does so as a consequence of its impact on conscious brains." ? Oliver Burkeman in ?Why can?t the world?s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?? (2015) "Without consciousness, the universe would still be just as immense and awe-inspiring. But without a conscious mind to appreciate its majesty, is there really any value in the existence of all that stuff? It is our experiences that make life worth living: exhilarating pleasures, sweeping emotions, subtle thoughts. Without consciousness none of these things is possible." ? Phillip Goff in ?Galileo?s Error: Foundationsfor a New Science of Consciousness? (2019) If we accept this premise, then the question is somewhat simplified. What are the desirous states of consciousness that we seek? And then secondary to that question, arise many other questions, such as: How do we weigh the relative difference between ending suffering vs creating happiness? How do we prioritize between variety, quality, and quantity of desired experiences? Is it possible to weigh the value of experiences between two different individuals? > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that > brings you peace as an individual. > To me, this is more a psychological and personal question, rather than a philosophical one. As each person has a different psychology, the answer for what brings an individual the most peace can be different for each person, and therefore it is for each person to try to answer this question for themselves. I doubt we will find any better on an answer than this, if this is how we define meaning. > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it > has > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for > safety, > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel > wanted > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body > was > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. > > So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools > to > give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of > stoicism > and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice > philosophical > "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such > things. > I think various societies, philosophies and religions, have given different answers to this question. But they all align generally in the seat direction, that of doing good (either for oneself, for others, or for the world.) "As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man." -- ?Epic of Gilgamesh? (2100 B.C.) According to Hinduism, there are four aims in life: - K?ma (desire): sensual pleasure, emotional fulfillment, aesthetic (arts, dance, music, nature) appreciation, enjoyment, love, affection - Artha (means of living): career, financial security, prosperity - Dharma (duties): virtue, moral values, ethics, non-violence, order - Moksha (liberation): freeing oneself from the cycle of reincarnation through enlightenment, self-knowledge, and self-realization "What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there is an almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the meaning of happiness." -- Aristotle in ?Nicomachean Ethics? NE I.4 (340 B.C.) In his 1973 work Ethics, the philosopher William Frankena tried to list everything that has intrinsic value. The following is his list: - Life, consciousness, and activity - Health and strength - Pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds - Happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc. - Truth - Knowledge and true opinion of various kinds, understanding, wisdom - Beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated - Aesthetic experience - Morally good dispositions or virtues - Mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation - Just distribution of goods and evils - Harmony and proportion in one?s own life - Power and experiences of achievement - Self-expression - Freedom - Peace, security - Adventure and novelty - Good reputation, honor, esteem, etc. > But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels > in > Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the > mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or > universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the > mystics > talk about. > Or as variously described as: Moksha Nirvana Enlightenment Which I would say, is understanding who you really are. > That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep > seated > ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of > life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just > telling > the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The > meaning > for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. > > When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very > fond > of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term > sustainable pleasure. Yes, this is how Epicurus framed it: "When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul." -- Epicurus in ?Letter to Menoeceus? (c. 300 B.C.) But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences > are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized > meaning > does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can > be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the > word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and > associations. > Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so > I'm > certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) > Yes happiness or contentment are good. Epicurus defined it negatively, in terms of absence of pain and suffering, which I think is close to the same thing as contentment. > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > I think that all meaning (purpose/value) in life reduces, ultimately, to realizing states of consciousness. And as conscious life forms, we all share a common goal: creating more, higher quality, and exploring the variety of, conscious experiences. The trajectory of life, everywhere and anywhere in the universe will, I think, follow this trajectory. We are, as conscious beings, on a course to fill the universe with consciousness for the purposes of realizing as many states of consciousness as possible, to eliminate suffering and pain, and promote the creation of positive experiences for all conscience beings. It may make little difference whether it is us or our machine descendents that are in control, for I think all conscious beings possess these goals, by virtue of the fact that they are conscious, and will deduce logically that all utility comes felt states of consciousness (just as humans have been deducing for centuries). Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 15:18:45 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:18:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Given human's infinite capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will invent meanings flattering them. Successes will be exaggerated; failures will be rationalized. Just the usual BS. billw On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good evening everyone, > > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > > When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as > an > object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be > told > which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply > personal > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to > express > and feel it. > > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that > brings you peace as an individual. > > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it > has > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for > safety, > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel > wanted > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body > was > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. > > So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools > to > give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of > stoicism > and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice > philosophical > "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such > things. > > But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels > in > Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the > mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or > universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the > mystics > talk about. > > That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep > seated > ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of > life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just > telling > the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The > meaning > for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. > > When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very > fond > of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term > sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical > experiences > are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized > meaning > does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can > be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the > word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and > associations. > Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so > I'm > certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) > > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > > Best regards, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 15:33:16 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:33:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, which he has since disowned. It was basically that "We aren't smart enough to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a superintelligent AGI and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research into the problem of AGI alignment has amended this to "No, don't do that. Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to align them. And whatever the meaning of life actually is, a necessary subgoal of achieving it is not being killed by superintelligent unaligned AGIs." His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still be found on archive.org, is still worth reading, even though it's core thesis is demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of the many and varied definitions of the word "soul", which is still one of the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section 4.7.1) https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Given human's infinite capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will > invent meanings flattering them. Successes will be exaggerated; failures > will be rationalized. Just the usual BS. billw > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Good evening everyone, >> >> Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) >> >> When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found >> as an >> object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can >> be told >> which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply >> personal >> and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to >> express >> and feel it. >> >> The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that >> brings you peace as an individual. >> >> But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although >> it has >> been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of >> like >> Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for >> safety, >> food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel >> wanted >> and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human >> body was >> made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, >> you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. >> >> So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and >> tools to >> give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of >> stoicism >> and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice >> philosophical >> "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other >> such >> things. >> >> But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels >> in >> Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the >> mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or >> universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the >> mystics >> talk about. >> >> That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep >> seated >> ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity >> of >> life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just >> telling >> the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The >> meaning >> for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. >> >> When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very >> fond >> of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term >> sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical >> experiences >> are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized >> meaning >> does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can >> be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the >> word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and >> associations. >> Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so >> I'm >> certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) >> >> So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 15:40:49 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:40:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: The problem with the meaning of life, as with any abstraction, is that it does not exist. There is no extensional meaning to it. No external reference. Thus it means whatever people say it means. If it were in the dictionary there would be pages and pages of usages. None the 'real' meaning because there isn't any. bill w. On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:35?AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, > which he has since disowned. It was basically that "We aren't smart enough > to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a > superintelligent AGI and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research > into the problem of AGI alignment has amended this to "No, don't do that. > Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to > align them. And whatever the meaning of life actually is, a necessary > subgoal of achieving it is not being killed by > superintelligent unaligned AGIs." > > His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still be found on > archive.org, is still worth reading, even though it's core thesis is > demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of > the many and varied definitions of the word "soul", which is still one of > the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section 4.7.1) > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Given human's infinite capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will >> invent meanings flattering them. Successes will be exaggerated; failures >> will be rationalized. Just the usual BS. billw >> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Good evening everyone, >>> >>> Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) >>> >>> When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found >>> as an >>> object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can >>> be told >>> which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply >>> personal >>> and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to >>> express >>> and feel it. >>> >>> The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that >>> brings you peace as an individual. >>> >>> But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although >>> it has >>> been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of >>> like >>> Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for >>> safety, >>> food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel >>> wanted >>> and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human >>> body was >>> made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, >>> you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. >>> >>> So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and >>> tools to >>> give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of >>> stoicism >>> and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice >>> philosophical >>> "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other >>> such >>> things. >>> >>> But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous >>> levels in >>> Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the >>> mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or >>> universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the >>> mystics >>> talk about. >>> >>> That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep >>> seated >>> ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity >>> of >>> life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just >>> telling >>> the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The >>> meaning >>> for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. >>> >>> When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am >>> very fond >>> of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term >>> sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical >>> experiences >>> are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized >>> meaning >>> does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can >>> be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the >>> word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and >>> associations. >>> Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, >>> so I'm >>> certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) >>> >>> So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 15:48:12 2023 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:48:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Well now you're getting me curious: does anything have "meaning"? If not, how would we know, and if so, what causes this? On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:42?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The problem with the meaning of life, as with any abstraction, is that it > does not exist. There is no extensional meaning to it. No external > reference. Thus it means whatever people say it means. If it were in > the dictionary there would be pages and pages of usages. None the 'real' > meaning because there isn't any. bill w. > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:35?AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, >> which he has since disowned. It was basically that "We aren't smart enough >> to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a >> superintelligent AGI and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research >> into the problem of AGI alignment has amended this to "No, don't do that. >> Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to >> align them. And whatever the meaning of life actually is, a necessary >> subgoal of achieving it is not being killed by >> superintelligent unaligned AGIs." >> >> His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still be found on >> archive.org, is still worth reading, even though it's core thesis is >> demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of >> the many and varied definitions of the word "soul", which is still one of >> the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section 4.7.1) >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit >> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Given human's infinite capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will >>> invent meanings flattering them. Successes will be exaggerated; failures >>> will be rationalized. Just the usual BS. billw >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Good evening everyone, >>>> >>>> Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) >>>> >>>> When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found >>>> as an >>>> object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can >>>> be told >>>> which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply >>>> personal >>>> and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to >>>> express >>>> and feel it. >>>> >>>> The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning >>>> that >>>> brings you peace as an individual. >>>> >>>> But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although >>>> it has >>>> been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of >>>> like >>>> Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for >>>> safety, >>>> food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel >>>> wanted >>>> and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human >>>> body was >>>> made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the >>>> output, >>>> you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. >>>> >>>> So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and >>>> tools to >>>> give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of >>>> stoicism >>>> and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice >>>> philosophical >>>> "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other >>>> such >>>> things. >>>> >>>> But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous >>>> levels in >>>> Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the >>>> mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth >>>> (or >>>> universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the >>>> mystics >>>> talk about. >>>> >>>> That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep >>>> seated >>>> ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the >>>> sanctity of >>>> life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just >>>> telling >>>> the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The >>>> meaning >>>> for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. >>>> >>>> When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am >>>> very fond >>>> of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term >>>> sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical >>>> experiences >>>> are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized >>>> meaning >>>> does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can >>>> be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the >>>> word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and >>>> associations. >>>> Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, >>>> so I'm >>>> certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) >>>> >>>> So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 16:02:04 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:02:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:42?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The problem with the meaning of life, as with any abstraction, is that it > does not exist. There is no extensional meaning to it. No external > reference. Thus it means whatever people say it means. If it were in > the dictionary there would be pages and pages of usages. > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk is a good take on it too. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 22:41:49 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:41:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Quote of the day (Nature briefings) ?People ask me, ?What is physical reality?? It?s physical reality! There?s nothing that it ?is.? What do you want me to say, that it?s made of macaroni or something?? Physicist Sean Carroll was sometimes challenged by the questions posed by philosophers at a workshop debating how consciousness might arise from the physical universe. (Scientific American | 9 min read) Keith On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:34?AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: > > Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, which he has since disowned. It was basically that "We aren't smart enough to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a superintelligent AGI and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research into the problem of AGI alignment has amended this to "No, don't do that. Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to align them. And whatever the meaning of life actually is, a necessary subgoal of achieving it is not being killed by superintelligent unaligned AGIs." > > His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still be found on archive.org, is still worth reading, even though it's core thesis is demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of the many and varied definitions of the word "soul", which is still one of the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section 4.7.1) > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> Given human's infinite capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will invent meanings flattering them. Successes will be exaggerated; failures will be rationalized. Just the usual BS. billw >> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: >>> >>> Good evening everyone, >>> >>> Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) >>> >>> When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as an >>> object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be told >>> which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply personal >>> and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express >>> and feel it. >>> >>> The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that >>> brings you peace as an individual. >>> >>> But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has >>> been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like >>> Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, >>> food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted >>> and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was >>> made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, >>> you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. >>> >>> So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to >>> give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism >>> and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical >>> "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such >>> things. >>> >>> But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in >>> Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the >>> mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or >>> universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics >>> talk about. >>> >>> That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated >>> ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of >>> life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling >>> the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning >>> for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. >>> >>> When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond >>> of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term >>> sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences >>> are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning >>> does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can >>> be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the >>> word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations. >>> Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm >>> certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) >>> >>> So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 05:05:26 2023 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:05:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Irrational mechanics, draft Ch. 3 Message-ID: (Very) early draft of Chapter 3 of my next book. Irrational mechanics, draft Ch. 3. Down and out in a block universe. https://www.turingchurch.com/p/irrational-mechanics-draft-ch-3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 29 09:22:37 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Thank you very much Bill. It seems to me that they overall are built on the same structure, but that there are differences in the order and how you traverse the structures. That said, I think overall, its a good starting point to get some kind of structure, and I do think that depending on the individual, different aspects will be emphasized. Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 14:10, efc--- via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> Hello Bill, >> >> On Thu, 28 SBep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > I think you have two discussions here. >> >> Most likely, or even more. I thought I'd start broad, and then narrow it >> down. =) >> >> > Maslow's hierarchy of needs is popular in Western psychology. >> > But it has also been criticised for misleading stages of needs and >> > being too biased towards Western culture. >> >> Yes, I know it is criticised, but I do think it is a good framework to >> start from when talking about different levels of meaning for different >> stages of life. >> >> Do you have any suggestions for a better framework? >> >> > The other discussion is the meaning of life, that has kept >> > philosophers busy for thousands of years. >> >> Amen! >> >> > Basically, it is a 'Choose your Philosophy' discussion. :) >> >> If you so choose! ;) Maybe there is one ultimate meaning (TM)? >> >> > I don't think you will reach any agreement on this, especially as we >> > like to pick and mix our favourite parts of all the philosophical >> > systems! >> >> Has there ever been any unanimous agreement? Perhaps, as Admiral Akbar >> says "it's a trap!". ;) >> >> Thank you very much for your input never the less. =) >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> _______________________________________________ > > > > Perhaps one of these? > > > Quote: > There are a number of alternative theories to Maslow?s hierarchy of > needs, including: > > ERG theory > Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory) > Self-determination theory > McClellan?s Human Motivation Theory > Nain model > Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs) > ----------------------- > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 29 09:24:06 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:24:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Thank you Bill, So would you agree that the meaning of life could be subjectively meaningful for you? Or do you think that it is a "ghost" distracting people from more productive matters? Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > The problem with the meaning of life, as with any abstraction, is that it does not exist. There is no extensional meaning to it.? No > external reference.? Thus it means whatever people say it means.? If it were in the?dictionary there would be pages and pages of > usages.? ?None the 'real' meaning because there isn't any.? bill w.? ? > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:35?AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: > Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, which he has since disowned. It was basically > that "We aren't smart enough to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a superintelligent AGI > and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research into the problem of AGI alignment has amended this to "No, don't do > that. Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to align them. And whatever the meaning of > life actually is, a necessary subgoal of achieving?it is not being killed by superintelligent?unaligned?AGIs." > His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still?be found on archive.org, is still worth reading, even though it's > core thesis is demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of the many and varied definitions of > the?word "soul", which is still one of the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section 4.7.1) > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > Given human's infinite?capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will invent meanings flattering them.? Successes > will be exaggerated; failures will be rationalized.? Just the usual BS. billw > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > Good evening everyone, > > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > > When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as an > object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be told > which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply personal > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express > and feel it. > > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that > brings you peace as an individual. > > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. > > So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to > give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism > and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical > "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such > things. > > But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in > Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the > mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or > universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics > talk about. > > That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated > ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of > life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling > the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning > for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. > > When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond > of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term > sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences > are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning > does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can > be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the > word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations. > Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm > certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) > > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > > Best regards, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 29 09:25:55 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:25:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Hello Darin, I'd say it depends on how you define "meaning". How do you define meaning? And based on that, do you feel you have some overarching "theme", quest or goal that enriches your life? Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: > Well now you're getting me curious: does anything have "meaning"? If not, how would we know, and if so, what causes this? > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:42?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > The problem with the meaning of life, as with any abstraction, is that it does not exist. There is no extensional meaning > to it.? No external reference.? Thus it means whatever people say it means.? If it were in the?dictionary there would be > pages and pages of usages.? ?None the 'real' meaning because there isn't any.? bill w.? ? > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:35?AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: > Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, which he has since disowned. It was > basically that "We aren't smart enough to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a > superintelligent AGI and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research into the problem of AGI alignment has > amended this to "No, don't do that. Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to > align them. And whatever the meaning of life actually is, a necessary subgoal of achieving?it is not being killed > by superintelligent?unaligned?AGIs." > His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still?be found on archive.org, is still worth reading, even though > it's core thesis is demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of the many and varied > definitions of the?word "soul", which is still one of the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section > 4.7.1) > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > Given human's infinite?capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will invent meanings flattering them.? > Successes will be exaggerated; failures will be rationalized.? Just the usual BS. billw > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > Good evening everyone, > > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > > When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as an > object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be told > which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply personal > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express > and feel it. > > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that > brings you peace as an individual. > > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. > > So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to > give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism > and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical > "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such > things. > > But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in > Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the > mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or > universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics > talk about. > > That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated > ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of > life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling > the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning > for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. > > When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond > of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term > sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences > are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning > does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can > be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the > word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations. > Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm > certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) > > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > > Best regards, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 29 09:26:59 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:26:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: Hello Keith, do you have the original link? It looks as if it comes from an online article, but I cannot find the link I'm afraid. Best regards, Daniel On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > Quote of the day (Nature briefings) > > ?People ask me, ?What is physical reality?? It?s physical reality! > There?s nothing that it ?is.? What do you want me to say, that it?s > made of macaroni or something?? > > Physicist Sean Carroll was sometimes challenged by the questions posed > by philosophers at a workshop debating how consciousness might arise > from the physical universe. (Scientific American | 9 min read) > > Keith > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:34?AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> Eliezer Yudkowsky had an interesting eary take on this in the late 90's, which he has since disowned. It was basically that "We aren't smart enough to determine the meaning of life. So our immediate task is to build a superintelligent AGI and have it figure it out." Twenty years of research into the problem of AGI alignment has amended this to "No, don't do that. Unaligned AGIs will kill us all, and we don't have the foggiest idea how to align them. And whatever the meaning of life actually is, a necessary subgoal of achieving it is not being killed by superintelligent unaligned AGIs." >> >> His "Meaning of Life FAQ" from the period, which can still be found on archive.org, is still worth reading, even though it's core thesis is demonstrably wrong and has been disowned. It has an excellent breakdown of the many and varied definitions of the word "soul", which is still one of the best short treatments I have ever read on the subject. (Section 4.7.1) >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xxhvL34i7AcjXtJ9phwelZ7IzHZ_xiz-8lGwpWxucI/edit >> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 9:21?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >>> >>> Given human's infinite capacity for self-aggrandizement, people will invent meanings flattering them. Successes will be exaggerated; failures will be rationalized. Just the usual BS. billw >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 4:19?PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> >>>> Good evening everyone, >>>> >>>> Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) >>>> >>>> When it comes to the meaning of life, I believe that it cannot be found as an >>>> object in the world, and I do not believe that it is something that can be told >>>> which would instantly create meaning. I think that meaning is deeply personal >>>> and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express >>>> and feel it. >>>> >>>> The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that >>>> brings you peace as an individual. >>>> >>>> But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has >>>> been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like >>>> Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, >>>> food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted >>>> and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was >>>> made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, >>>> you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. >>>> >>>> So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to >>>> give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism >>>> and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical >>>> "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such >>>> things. >>>> >>>> But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in >>>> Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the >>>> mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or >>>> universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics >>>> talk about. >>>> >>>> That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated >>>> ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of >>>> life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling >>>> the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning >>>> for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. >>>> >>>> When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond >>>> of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term >>>> sustainable pleasure. But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences >>>> are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning >>>> does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can >>>> be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the >>>> word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations. >>>> Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm >>>> certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) >>>> >>>> So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From efc at swisscows.email Fri Sep 29 10:10:09 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:10:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> Message-ID: <883d2dbd-9a59-9404-473d-9baa47f4ef1e@swisscows.email> Good morning Jason, On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 5:19 PM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > Good evening everyone, > > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > > I like that spirit!? Well, if I learned anything from the MWI thread it is that we shouldn't just automatically reject investigating things that on the surface seem outside of our realm of answerable questions. ;) > When it comes to the meaning of life, > > I find it helps to start with a definition to make sure everyone is on the same page. For the purposes of what I write below, I am > using "meaning" in the sense of reason, purpose, and value. So the question of the meaning of life is to ask, what purpose, of any, > is there in living? What value, if any, is there in living? For what reason, if any, are we here? Interesting! I think we might have a first point of divergence here. When it comes to the meaning of life, I'm not so interested actually in the reason. That is a question I leave to science as in what's the reason I am here, evolution, reproduction etc. Purpose, could also stray close to science, as in propagating genes, but purpose could also be given a deeper meaning I think, so this is getting closer. When it comes to value, I think it would be interesting to see how value is measured and in what "currency"? When I think about meaning of life, I think about something which gives me a deep sense of connection to the universe, it could be an over arching theme of my life, perhaps an ultimate quest or journey which fills my life with significance. (I tried on purpose to not use the words value or purpose here, so see if you can perhaps find a better word in english for me to use.) I also distinguish between levels of meaning. The paragraph above is the "ultimate" or final deep seated meaning that transforms the way you live. There is also a more mundande level of meaning to me, such as evolution, propagating genes, provide for my family, being a positive and contributing part of our global economy and thus on a tiny level making life better for everyone. Those types of meaning, I consider philosophical chicken soup. It's nice to say, it's nice to think about, but I wouldn't say that any of those things fundamentally shift the way I live my life. They are kind of "bolted on" a lifestyle that I was given by my culture and parents. So perhaps a benefit by verbalizing them, is that my life, given those reasons as a backdrop, might be lived more consciously than just going through the motions and not thinking about how, what you do, contributes to the rest of humanity and the world we're in. Do I make any sense? > I believe that it cannot be found as an > object in the world, > > I take this to mean it's not a physical object. But could it be a realizable state in this world, i.e., a state of mind or a state of > consciousness? I think it has two meanings. First of all, it is not a physical object, or a sentence or "secret" which can be spoken, and then suddenly be realized. The second meaning, just as you say, is that it could be realizable, as in a state of mind achieved based on thought, action, sudden inspiration, enlightenment, or what have you. > and I do not believe that it is something that can be told > which would instantly create meaning. > > Do you think it is describable at all? I think that perhaps you can describe it (to borrow from religion) as a map, or a path, but you will have to walk the path yourself to get to the destination. I also think that it might not be the same path for everyone, but perhaps a general direction could be found? > I think that meaning is deeply personal > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order to express > and feel it. > > I would say all intrinsicly meaningful (valuable) things, or in other words, anything that is meaningful/valuable on its own, are > states of awareness / consciousness. Those things that are "instrumentally meaningful" are valuable only in so far as their potential > to affect states of consciousness. Isn't "valuable only in so far as their potential to affect states of consciousness" a truism? By the fact that we are physical beings with conscisoussness, wouldn't that mean everything is meaningful? > "It there appeared that we could not, on reflection, maintain anything to be intrinsically and ultimately good, except in so far as > it entered into relation to consciousness of some kind and rendered good and desirable: and thus that the only ultimate Good, or End > in itself, must be Goodness or Excellence of Conscious Life." > -- Henry Sidgwick in ?The Methods of Ethics? (1874) I agree to the extent that realizing deep seated meaning and values, is a mental process, fed with impressions and experiences from the physical world, or perhaps, not even that. It could be argued that some actually starve the mind of impressions and experiences to find their deep seated meaning. > "Without consciousness, the universe would still be just as immense and awe-inspiring. But without a conscious mind to appreciate its > majesty, is there really any value in the existence of all that stuff? It is our experiences that make life worth living: > exhilarating pleasures, sweeping emotions, subtle thoughts. Without consciousness none of these things is possible." > ? Phillip Goff in ?Galileo?s Error: Foundationsfor a New Science of Consciousness? (2019) Agreed. When we talk our meaning (or the meaning of aliens with conscious minds) the mind I think is key. As you already know, I believe that a purely physical world without consciousness is devoid of truth, mathematics etc. So yes, I agree with this. > If we accept this premise, then the question is somewhat simplified. What are the desirous states of consciousness that we seek? Yes, and how (if at all?) can these states be induced in a human being in a reliable way, to enrich that persons life? > And then secondary to that question, arise many other questions, such as: How do we weigh the relative difference between ending > suffering vs creating happiness? How do we prioritize between variety, quality, and quantity of desired experiences? Is it possible > to weigh the value of experiences between two different individuals? Seems like this would branch out into meta ethics and ethics? But one angle I think I see here is the epicurean one. You have actions that when performed, increase your mental well being, so those you should engage in, and actions which detract, you should abstain from, while of course, taking a long term and sustainable view of the action. I do not think these actions however, can be held to an objective standard and can be compared between individuals, except so far as the level of endorphines and subjectively reported feelings of contentment (which might or might not be reduced to endorphins). However, I also believe that deep seated meaning cannot be based on endorphines alone, since that does leave us open to the pleasure monster and what that would entail. I also think, that our reasoning and understanding of "everyday pleasure" and fundamental meaning/pleasure might relate to different things. But here it, for me, gets a bit fuzzy around the edges. > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental meaning that > brings you peace as an individual. > > To me, this is more a psychological and personal question, rather than a philosophical one. As each person has a different > psychology, the answer for what brings an individual the most peace can be different for each person, and therefore it is for each > person to try to answer this question for themselves. I doubt we will find any better on an answer than this, if this is how we > define meaning. I agree. For me, essential meaning is a deel personal question. I do however believe that the process of finding or reaching this state can be fed by philosophy and science. I think that exploring theories beyond our world could lead one to make the necessary connections in the brain, that inspires one to deeper meaning. So yes, it is deeply subjective, yet I think that actions and thoughts can influence the process so it is not completely devoid of tangible starting points. > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and although it has > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I kind of like > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to live, for safety, > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to feel wanted > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the human body was > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the output, > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological health. > > So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers and tools to > give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a pinch of stoicism > and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice philosophical > "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and other such > things. > > I think various societies, philosophies and religions, have given different answers to this question.? But they all align generally > in the seat direction, that of doing good (either for oneself, for others, or for the world.) I think we can state that as a fact. =) But when it comes to religions, there are the origins of religion (the fundamental experience someone had) and the external manifestation of that experience, which was then transformed through the ages to a way to form cohesive groups and societies. So although they do serve as inspiration, I think a lot of the original experience and meaning has gotten lost through the centuries, and the only way to recapture that, is to "walk the walk" and not "talk the talk" so to speak. > According to Hinduism, there are four aims in life: > - K?ma (desire): sensual pleasure, emotional fulfillment, aesthetic (arts, dance, music, nature) appreciation, enjoyment, love, > affection > - Artha (means of living): career, financial security, prosperity > - Dharma (duties): virtue, moral values, ethics, non-violence, order > - Moksha (liberation): freeing oneself from the cycle of reincarnation through enlightenment, self-knowledge, and self-realization Ah yes, that deovetails quite nicely with my fuzzy statements above about different levels of meaning in your life and with Maslow (& Co) as well I think. > "What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there is an almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated > alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the > meaning of happiness." > --? Aristotle in ?Nicomachean Ethics? NE I.4 (340 B.C.) Wise words! > But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous levels in > Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with have the > mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the earth (or > universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe that the mystics > talk about. > > Or as variously described as: > Moksha > Nirvana? > Enlightenment Yes. But I'm not happy with the religious overtones, and I wonder if it is possible to achieve such a state outside of a religious tradition, or if the tradition is necessary for achievement of that state? I don't know if it is true or not, but wasn't the Buddha agnostic on the question of gods? Might it be possible to distill those concepts into a more neutral or descriptive one, and distill the various techniques of achieving it for people to try? Will that be in any way beneficial and enriching for people, or, would it risk people getting addicted to the experience to the detriment of "normal" society? > Which I would say, is understanding who you really are. What do we mean when we ask who we are? > That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have deep seated > ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the sanctity of > life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But just telling > the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. The meaning > for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. > > When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I am very fond > of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about long-term > sustainable pleasure. > > Yes, this is how Epicurus framed it: > > "When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as > we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain > in the body and of trouble in the soul." > -- Epicurus in ?Letter to Menoeceus? (c. 300 B.C.) I don't know if I agree with the definition of absence of pain or not, but I do agree that it is a much better definition than "pleasure". Is contentment the absence of pain? Or is it more? > But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences > are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully realized meaning > does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can > be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of the > word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and associations. > Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking pros, so I'm > certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) > > Yes happiness or contentment are good. Epicurus defined it negatively, in terms of absence of pain and suffering, which I think is > close to the same thing as contentment. Ah, you answered my question above. To me as a non-native english speaker, it feels as if there is a difference between contentment and absence of pain. I think perhaps the reason could be that I have a worse grasp of the nuances of the language, and perhaps, the culture I grew up in (swedish)? > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > > I think that all meaning (purpose/value) in life reduces, ultimately, to realizing states of consciousness. And as conscious life > forms, we all share a common goal: creating more, higher quality, and exploring the variety of, conscious experiences. Why would I be made happier if I had a way to create (and this is just a thought experiment) small, happy consciousnesses without being able to improve my own position? Sounds depressing to me that my life function would be to create life, instead of living the life I have. Maybe we should focus on quality and not quantity? Maybe there is no inherent benefit in just quantity? > The trajectory of life, everywhere and anywhere in the universe will, I think, follow this trajectory. We are, as conscious beings, > on a course to fill the universe with consciousness for the purposes of realizing as many states of consciousness as possible, to > eliminate suffering and pain, and promote the creation of positive experiences for all conscience beings. > It may make little difference whether it is us or our machine descendents that are in control, for I think all conscious beings > possess these goals, by virtue of the fact that they are conscious, and will deduce logically that all utility comes felt states of > consciousness (just as humans have been deducing for centuries). Best regards, Daniel > > Jason? > > From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 11:52:17 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:52:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Are Many Worlds & Pilot Wave THE SAME Theory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 29, 2023, 6:19 AM John Clark wrote: > My answer would be YES, except that Many worlds just needs Schrodinger's > Equation, but Pilot Wave theory also needs a very complex guiding equation > that does nothing but make the theory incompatible with special relativity. > If Occam's razor alone wasn't enough to rule out Pilot Waves that should do > it, this video goes in the more detail explaining why: > > Are Many Worlds & Pilot Wave THE SAME Theory? > > Nice video, thanks for sharing. I agree. Both accept the continued reality of the wave function. Pilot-wave theory adds purely philosophical assumptions, namely, that "all but one branch is not-really-real" and "everyone in those other branches is a philosophical zombie." This zombiehood claim is made despite the fact that the people in these "not-really-real" branches still behave like the conscious people in the real branch; they have full lives, they talk to one another, they write books about consciousness, they develop a pilot-wave theory that people in other branches are zombies, etc.) Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 20:52:23 2023 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 16:52:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The meaning of life? Let's solve this together, once and for all! ; ) In-Reply-To: <883d2dbd-9a59-9404-473d-9baa47f4ef1e@swisscows.email> References: <31c8f424-9eea-e307-1fe8-340357edff7d@swisscows.email> <883d2dbd-9a59-9404-473d-9baa47f4ef1e@swisscows.email> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:11?AM efc--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Good morning Jason, > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 5:19 PM efc--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Good evening everyone, > > > > Let's solve this together, once and for all! ;) > > > > I like that spirit! > > Well, if I learned anything from the MWI thread it is that we shouldn't > just automatically reject investigating things that on the surface seem > outside of our realm of answerable questions. ;) > > > When it comes to the meaning of life, > > > > I find it helps to start with a definition to make sure everyone is on > the same page. For the purposes of what I write below, I am > > using "meaning" in the sense of reason, purpose, and value. So the > question of the meaning of life is to ask, what purpose, of any, > > is there in living? What value, if any, is there in living? For what > reason, if any, are we here? > > Interesting! I think we might have a first point of divergence here. > When it comes to the meaning of life, I'm not so interested actually in > the reason. That is a question I leave to science as in what's the > reason I am here, evolution, reproduction etc. > > Purpose, could also stray close to science, as in propagating genes, but > purpose could also be given a deeper meaning I think, so this is getting > closer. > > When it comes to value, I think it would be interesting to see how value > is measured and in what "currency"? > Some have come up with the term "utils " (or alternatively hedons, utiles, utilons). > > When I think about meaning of life, I think about something which gives > me a deep sense of connection to the universe, it could be an over > arching theme of my life, perhaps an ultimate quest or journey which > fills my life with significance. (I tried on purpose to not use the > words value or purpose here, so see if you can perhaps find a better > word in english for me to use.) > > I also distinguish between levels of meaning. The paragraph above is the > "ultimate" or final deep seated meaning that transforms the way you > live. There is also a more mundande level of meaning to me, such as > evolution, propagating genes, provide for my family, being a positive > and contributing part of our global economy and thus on a tiny level > making life better for everyone. > > Those types of meaning, I consider philosophical chicken soup. It's nice > to say, it's nice to think about, but I wouldn't say that any of those > things fundamentally shift the way I live my life. They are kind of > "bolted on" a lifestyle that I was given by my culture and parents. So > perhaps a benefit by verbalizing them, is that my life, given those > reasons as a backdrop, might be lived more consciously than just going > through the motions and not thinking about how, what you do, contributes > to the rest of humanity and the world we're in. > > Do I make any sense? > I think I see what you are pointing at. Is it what the Dzogchen seek? Is it God-Realization ? Is it the experience of Ego Death ? I think what is common in all of these is transcending the illusion of the self as one small part of existence, and expanding one's self-identification to the whole, or the all. This, as you say, can rewrite, or transform one's approach to life, interaction with others, and perhaps make one more "selfless." > > > I believe that it cannot be found as an > > object in the world, > > > > I take this to mean it's not a physical object. But could it be a > realizable state in this world, i.e., a state of mind or a state of > > consciousness? > > I think it has two meanings. First of all, it is not a physical object, > or a sentence or "secret" which can be spoken, and then suddenly be > realized. > > The second meaning, just as you say, is that it could be realizable, as > in a state of mind achieved based on thought, action, sudden > inspiration, enlightenment, or what have you. > > > and I do not believe that it is something that can be told > > which would instantly create meaning. > > > > Do you think it is describable at all? > > I think that perhaps you can describe it (to borrow from religion) as a > map, or a path, but you will have to walk the path yourself to get to > the destination. I also think that it might not be the same path for > everyone, but perhaps a general direction could be found? > > > I think that meaning is deeply personal > > and it is something which has to be experienced and lived in order > to express > > and feel it. > > > > I would say all intrinsicly meaningful (valuable) things, or in other > words, anything that is meaningful/valuable on its own, are > > states of awareness / consciousness. Those things that are > "instrumentally meaningful" are valuable only in so far as their potential > > to affect states of consciousness. > > Isn't "valuable only in so far as their potential to affect states of > consciousness" a truism? I think so. But it is a clarifying truism, and one that often goes not directly acknowledged. > By the fact that we are physical beings with > conscisoussness, wouldn't that mean everything is meaningful? > I think there is some meaning (value) in every conscious experience (which may be regarded as negative or positive, on the whole). > > > "It there appeared that we could not, on reflection, maintain anything > to be intrinsically and ultimately good, except in so far as > > it entered into relation to consciousness of some kind and rendered good > and desirable: and thus that the only ultimate Good, or End > > in itself, must be Goodness or Excellence of Conscious Life." > > -- Henry Sidgwick in ?The Methods of Ethics? (1874) > > I agree to the extent that realizing deep seated meaning and values, is > a mental process, fed with impressions and experiences from the physical > world, or perhaps, not even that. It could be argued that some actually > starve the mind of impressions and experiences to find their deep seated > meaning. > Yes, perhaps this is why some use meditation or sensory deprivation as a path to bring about such an experience of the kind you allude to. > > > "Without consciousness, the universe would still be just as immense and > awe-inspiring. But without a conscious mind to appreciate its > > majesty, is there really any value in the existence of all that stuff? > It is our experiences that make life worth living: > > exhilarating pleasures, sweeping emotions, subtle thoughts. Without > consciousness none of these things is possible." > > ? Phillip Goff in ?Galileo?s Error: Foundationsfor a New Science of > Consciousness? (2019) > > Agreed. When we talk our meaning (or the meaning of aliens with > conscious minds) the mind I think is key. As you already know, I believe > that a purely physical world without consciousness is devoid of truth, > mathematics etc. So yes, I agree with this. > > > If we accept this premise, then the question is somewhat simplified. > What are the desirous states of consciousness that we seek? > > Yes, and how (if at all?) can these states be induced in a human being > in a reliable way, to enrich that persons life? > I can't speak to the reliability, but these are often mentioned: - Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury - Transcranial Stimulation - Meditation - Sensory Deprivation - Fasting - Psychedelics / Entheogens - Thought - Koans - Action > > > And then secondary to that question, arise many other questions, such > as: How do we weigh the relative difference between ending > > suffering vs creating happiness? How do we prioritize between variety, > quality, and quantity of desired experiences? Is it possible > > to weigh the value of experiences between two different individuals? > > Seems like this would branch out into meta ethics and ethics? But one > angle I think I see here is the epicurean one. You have actions that > when performed, increase your mental well being, so those you should > engage in, and actions which detract, you should abstain from, while of > course, taking a long term and sustainable view of the action. I do not > think these actions however, can be held to an objective standard and > can be compared between individuals, except so far as the level of > endorphines and subjectively reported feelings of contentment (which > might or might not be reduced to endorphins). > > However, I also believe that deep seated meaning cannot be based on > endorphines alone, since that does leave us open to the pleasure monster > and what that would entail. > > I also think, that our reasoning and understanding of "everyday > pleasure" and fundamental meaning/pleasure might relate to different > things. But here it, for me, gets a bit fuzzy around the edges. > > > The meaning I am talking about is a deep seated, fundamental > meaning that > > brings you peace as an individual. > > > > To me, this is more a psychological and personal question, rather than a > philosophical one. As each person has a different > > psychology, the answer for what brings an individual the most peace can > be different for each person, and therefore it is for each > > person to try to answer this question for themselves. I doubt we will > find any better on an answer than this, if this is how we > > define meaning. > > I agree. For me, essential meaning is a deel personal question. I do > however believe that the process of finding or reaching this state can > be fed by philosophy and science. I think that exploring theories beyond > our world could lead one to make the necessary connections in the brain, > that inspires one to deeper meaning. > > So yes, it is deeply subjective, yet I think that actions and thoughts > can influence the process so it is not completely devoid of tangible > starting points. > I do think certain thought patterns/ideas can help bring about the experience. For example, meditating deeply on the question of how one came to exist. Or even watching a movie like "The Prestige" which is about what one experiences when duplicated. I think reading Arnold Zuboff's arguments in "One self: the logic of experience" can be helpful as well, but all of these can only "bring the horse to the water", so to speak. It is up to the person to do the drinking. > > > But, I also believe there are different levels of meaning, and > although it has > > been criticized, as an approximate framework to talk within, I > kind of like > > Maslows pyramid of needs. We have a need for life, a drive to > live, for safety, > > food, etc. On top of that we have our everyday meaning, we need to > feel wanted > > and that we produce something. I believe for instance, that the > human body was > > made for input and output. If you starve the input, or starve the > output, > > you'll create an imbalance that will impact your psychological > health. > > > > So looking at positive psychology, I think we have some pointers > and tools to > > give us a good foundation for worldly meaning. Add to that, a > pinch of stoicism > > and epicureanism, and you can, with a bit of skill, create a nice > philosophical > > "mind castle" for yourself that does away with fear of death and > other such > > things. > > > > I think various societies, philosophies and religions, have given > different answers to this question. But they all align generally > > in the seat direction, that of doing good (either for oneself, for > others, or for the world.) > > I think we can state that as a fact. =) But when it comes to religions, > there are the origins of religion (the fundamental experience someone > had) and the external manifestation of that experience, which was then > transformed through the ages to a way to form cohesive groups and > societies. So although they do serve as inspiration, I think a lot of > the original experience and meaning has gotten lost through the > centuries, and the only way to recapture that, is to "walk the walk" and > not "talk the talk" so to speak. > Yes. > > According to Hinduism, there are four aims in life: > > - K?ma (desire): sensual pleasure, emotional fulfillment, aesthetic > (arts, dance, music, nature) appreciation, enjoyment, love, > > affection > > - Artha (means of living): career, financial security, prosperity > > - Dharma (duties): virtue, moral values, ethics, non-violence, order > > - Moksha (liberation): freeing oneself from the cycle of reincarnation > through enlightenment, self-knowledge, and self-realization > > Ah yes, that deovetails quite nicely with my fuzzy statements above > about different levels of meaning in your life and with Maslow (& Co) as > well I think. > > > "What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there > is an almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated > > alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life > and successful living. They disagree, however, about the > > meaning of happiness." > > -- Aristotle in ?Nicomachean Ethics? NE I.4 (340 B.C.) > > Wise words! > :-) Yes, so true, even to this day. > > > But for me, that is not Meaning with a capital m. All the previous > levels in > > Maslows pyramid contribute to a good life, but at the top with > have the > > mystical self-actualization, and I am somewhat attracted to the > earth (or > > universe) shattering realizations of a union with the universe > that the mystics > > talk about. > > > > Or as variously described as: > > Moksha > > Nirvana > > Enlightenment > > Yes. But I'm not happy with the religious overtones, While these terms are used in various religions, I don't find these particularly religious concepts, rather, they represent the common mystic teaching, which is almost universal across societies and times (the perennial philosophy). Which I think is what you allude to as the origin of religion, the fundamental experience itself. > and I wonder if it > is possible to achieve such a state outside of a religious tradition, or > if the tradition is necessary for achievement of that state? > I think it's quite possible to experience it outside of a religious tradition. > > I don't know if it is true or not, but wasn't the Buddha agnostic on the > question of gods? > It varies a bit depending on which sect of Buddhism you emphasize, but there is, nonetheless, a general agreement that mind is what is primarily behind everything. Here are some passages that show the spectrum of Buddhist thinking on the question: "All the phenomena of existence have mind as their precursor, mind as their supreme leader, and of mind are they made." -- Gautama Buddha in ?The Dhammapada ? (c. 500 B.C.) "I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists that is not my essence. [?] Everything inanimate is my essence. Everything that lives is my essence. All the habitats and the beings living therein are my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence because I am the universal root: there is nothing that is not contained in me. [?] All that manifests from my Body, my Voice, and my Mind springs from my essence, is re-absorbed in it, and is nothing other than my essence." -- Kulayar?ja Tantra 55.1 (c. 850 A.D.) Both of these passages place mind at the base of reality. But Tibetan Buddhism describes this "pure and total consciousness" as the "supreme source " from which everything emanates, and thus you might identify this almost like "God", perhaps more of the flavor of Atman of Hinduism. I think there is much we can learn from the study of old ideas, whatever their source. Rather than trying to rediscover everything from scratch, people have recorded their thoughts and ideas going back thousands of years, covering many billions of lives. > Might it be possible to distill those concepts into a more neutral or > descriptive one, and distill the various techniques of achieving it for > people to try? > Probably. But I don't know whether that would be better or worse. > > Will that be in any way beneficial and enriching for people, or, would > it risk people getting addicted to the experience to the detriment of > "normal" society? > I think experiments that have looked at giving ordinary people mystical experiences, have generally reported it as a profound positive impact on their life. > > > Which I would say, is understanding who you really are. > > What do we mean when we ask who we are? > This gets back to our discussion on personal identity. What experiences are ours. Why was "I" born as this person? Am "I" only this person? Am I the universe experiencing all lives, but only in a position to know one at a time? etc. Have you seen The Egg ? > > > That might be a peak, and on the road to that peak, you can have > deep seated > > ethical and moral feelings such as doctors when it comes to the > sanctity of > > life, and saving lives, that give a deep meaning to your life. But > just telling > > the would-be doctor that it is nice to save lives, is not enough. > The meaning > > for the doctor is created when he is performing his function. > > > > When it does come to the lighter kind of philosophical meaning, I > am very fond > > of epicureanism with the understanding that it talks about > long-term > > sustainable pleasure. > > > > Yes, this is how Epicurus framed it: > > > > "When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the > pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as > > we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful > misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain > > in the body and of trouble in the soul." > > -- Epicurus in ?Letter to Menoeceus? (c. 300 B.C.) > > I don't know if I agree with the definition of absence of pain or not, > but I do agree that it is a much better definition than "pleasure". Is > contentment the absence of pain? Or is it more? > Dictionary.com gives "the state of being contented; satisfaction; ease of mind." Ease of mind, I would say, is more or less the same as an "absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul." > > > But it could be argued, that peak mystical experiences > > are aligned with that philosophy, since a deep seated, fully > realized meaning > > does bring you long-term sustainable pleasure so epicureanism can > > be deeper than it looks at first sight. Actually, I'm not fond of > the > > word pleasure since I think brings with it bad connotations and > associations. > > Perhaps contentment might be better? You're the english speaking > pros, so I'm > > certain you'll be able to nail it down to a better word. =) > > > > Yes happiness or contentment are good. Epicurus defined it negatively, > in terms of absence of pain and suffering, which I think is > > close to the same thing as contentment. > > Ah, you answered my question above. To me as a non-native english > speaker, it feels as if there is a difference between contentment and > absence of pain. I think perhaps the reason could be that I have a worse > grasp of the nuances of the language, and perhaps, the culture I grew up > in (swedish)? > Contentment I think often bears a connotation of "mild happiness". > > > So with that said, what do you all think about the meaning of life? > > > > I think that all meaning (purpose/value) in life reduces, ultimately, to > realizing states of consciousness. And as conscious life > > forms, we all share a common goal: creating more, higher quality, and > exploring the variety of, conscious experiences. > > Why would I be made happier if I had a way to create (and this is just a > thought experiment) small, happy consciousnesses without being able to > improve my own position? It's not that you would be made happier by creating more experiences. Rather, it's that all conscious life regards having more positive experiences as better than fewer conscious experiences. For the same reason that I hope you would see the destruction of Earth as a negative: the continuance of consciousness life on earth is regarded as a "good thing" because it allows for more conscious experiences to be created. Sounds depressing to me that my life function > would be to create life, instead of living the life I have. > That's not your life function, it's a universal value that more experiences are better than fewer ones (when the experiences themselves are not negative ones). For example, I think anyone not in pain or suffering tends to prefer continued life (for example) compared to death, or continued life on earth, compared to extinction of life on earth. > Maybe we should focus on quality and not quantity? Maybe there is no > inherent benefit in just quantity? > I think some balance is needed. Otherwise we are led to extremes like a single mind having a permanent heroin high, or something like that. Likewise the value for variety, rather than just quantity or quality. > > The trajectory of life, everywhere and anywhere in the universe will, I > think, follow this trajectory. We are, as conscious beings, > > on a course to fill the universe with consciousness for the purposes of > realizing as many states of consciousness as possible, to > > eliminate suffering and pain, and promote the creation of positive > experiences for all conscience beings. > > It may make little difference whether it is us or our machine > descendents that are in control, for I think all conscious beings > > possess these goals, by virtue of the fact that they are conscious, and > will deduce logically that all utility comes felt states of > > consciousness (just as humans have been deducing for centuries). > > Best regards, > Daniel Best, Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 22:12:53 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 23:12:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Alternatives_compared_to_Maslow=E2=80=99s_hierar?= =?utf-8?q?chy_of_needs?= Message-ID: This may be of interest. I asked an AI to do the analysis for me. BillK Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a well-known theory in the field of psychology that suggests individuals have a set of hierarchical needs that must be fulfilled in order to achieve self-actualization. However, there are several alternative theories that provide different perspectives on human motivation and needs. In this analysis, we will examine six alternative theories to Maslow's hierarchy of needs: ERG theory, Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory), Self-determination theory, McClelland?s Human Motivation Theory, Nain model, and Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs). 1. ERG Theory: ERG theory, proposed by Clayton Alderfer, is an alternative to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. ERG stands for Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. According to this theory, individuals have three core needs: existence needs (similar to physiological and safety needs in Maslow's hierarchy), relatedness needs (similar to social and esteem needs), and growth needs (similar to self-actualization). Unlike Maslow's hierarchy, ERG theory suggests that these needs can be activated simultaneously and that frustration in one need can lead individuals to focus on other needs. 2. Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory): Herzberg's Two-factor theory focuses on the factors that influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to this theory, there are two sets of factors: hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors include aspects such as salary, working conditions, and company policies, which can lead to dissatisfaction if not met but do not necessarily result in satisfaction when met. On the other hand, motivators include factors like recognition, achievement, and personal growth, which can lead to job satisfaction when present. This theory emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivators in fulfilling higher-level needs. 3. Self-determination theory: Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, focuses on the role of intrinsic motivation in human behavior. SDT suggests that individuals have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the need for self-direction and control over one's actions, competence is the need to feel capable and effective in one's activities, and relatedness is the need for social connection and belongingness. SDT posits that when these needs are satisfied, individuals experience intrinsic motivation and well-being. 4. McClelland?s Human Motivation Theory: McClelland's Human Motivation Theory focuses on three primary needs: achievement, affiliation, and power. According to this theory, individuals vary in the strength of these needs, which influence their behavior and motivation. The need for achievement refers to the desire to excel and accomplish challenging tasks, the need for affiliation relates to the desire for social interaction and belongingness, and the need for power reflects the desire to influence others and control one's environment. McClelland's theory suggests that individuals with a high need for achievement are more likely to be motivated by challenging goals and feedback. 5. Nain model: The Nain model, developed by Dr. Raj Nain, proposes a different perspective on human motivation. This model suggests that individuals have four core needs: physical well-being, emotional well-being, mental well-being, and spiritual well-being. According to Nain, these needs are interconnected and must be fulfilled holistically for overall well-being. The model emphasizes the importance of balance across these dimensions of well-being. 6. Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs): Murray's System of Needs, also known as the Theory of Psychogenic Needs, was developed by Henry Murray. This theory suggests that individuals have a set of psychogenic needs that drive their behavior. These needs include achievement, affiliation, power, autonomy, dominance, order, play, understanding, and counteraction. Murray's theory emphasizes the role of unconscious needs in shaping human motivation and behavior. In conclusion, these alternative theories to Maslow's hierarchy of needs provide different perspectives on human motivation and needs. While Maslow's hierarchy suggests a hierarchical progression of needs, these alternative theories propose different categorizations and emphasize various aspects of motivation. Each theory offers valuable insights into understanding human behavior and can be applied in different contexts to enhance motivation and well-being. ---------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From efc at swisscows.email Sat Sep 30 10:13:24 2023 From: efc at swisscows.email (efc at swisscows.email) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 12:13:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] =?iso8859-7?q?Alternatives_compared_to_Maslow=A2s_hierarch?= =?iso8859-7?q?y_of_needs?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Bill, I think the AI came up with much of the same that was in the link you sent. Very nice summary! =) Best regards, Daniel On Fri, 29 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > This may be of interest. > I asked an AI to do the analysis for me. > BillK > > > Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a well-known theory in the field of psychology that suggests individuals have a set of hierarchical > needs that must be fulfilled in order to achieve self-actualization. However, there are several alternative theories that provide > different perspectives on human motivation and needs. In this analysis, we will examine six alternative theories to Maslow's > hierarchy of needs: ERG theory, Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory), Self-determination theory, McClelland?s Human > Motivation Theory, Nain model, and Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs). > > 1. ERG Theory: > ERG theory, proposed by Clayton Alderfer, is an alternative to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. ERG stands for Existence, Relatedness, > and Growth. According to this theory, individuals have three core needs: existence needs (similar to physiological and safety needs > in Maslow's hierarchy), relatedness needs (similar to social and esteem needs), and growth needs (similar to self-actualization). > Unlike Maslow's hierarchy, ERG theory suggests that these needs can be activated simultaneously and that frustration in one need can > lead individuals to focus on other needs. > > 2. Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory): > Herzberg's Two-factor theory focuses on the factors that influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to this theory, > there are two sets of factors: hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors include aspects such as salary, working conditions, > and company policies, which can lead to dissatisfaction if not met but do not necessarily result in satisfaction when met. On the > other hand, motivators include factors like recognition, achievement, and personal growth, which can lead to job satisfaction when > present. This theory emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivators in fulfilling higher-level needs. > > 3. Self-determination theory: > Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, focuses on the role of intrinsic motivation in human > behavior. SDT suggests that individuals have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers > to the need for self-direction and control over one's actions, competence is the need to feel capable and effective in one's > activities, and relatedness is the need for social connection and belongingness. SDT posits that when these needs are satisfied, > individuals experience intrinsic motivation and well-being. > > 4. McClelland?s Human Motivation Theory: > McClelland's Human Motivation Theory focuses on three primary needs: achievement, affiliation, and power. According to this theory, > individuals vary in the strength of these needs, which influence their behavior and motivation. The need for achievement refers to > the desire to excel and accomplish challenging tasks, the need for affiliation relates to the desire for social interaction and > belongingness, and the need for power reflects the desire to influence others and control one's environment. McClelland's theory > suggests that individuals with a high need for achievement are more likely to be motivated by challenging goals and feedback. > > 5. Nain model: > The Nain model, developed by Dr. Raj Nain, proposes a different perspective on human motivation. This model suggests that individuals > have four core needs: physical well-being, emotional well-being, mental well-being, and spiritual well-being. According to Nain, > these needs are interconnected and must be fulfilled holistically for overall well-being. The model emphasizes the importance of > balance across these dimensions of well-being. > > 6. Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs): > Murray's System of Needs, also known as the Theory of Psychogenic Needs, was developed by Henry Murray. This theory suggests that > individuals have a set of psychogenic needs that drive their behavior. These needs include achievement, affiliation, power, autonomy, > dominance, order, play, understanding, and counteraction. Murray's theory emphasizes the role of unconscious needs in shaping human > motivation and behavior. > > In conclusion, these alternative theories to Maslow's hierarchy of needs provide different perspectives on human motivation and > needs. While Maslow's hierarchy suggests a hierarchical progression of needs, these alternative theories propose different > categorizations and emphasize various aspects of motivation. Each theory offers valuable insights into understanding human behavior > and can be applied in different contexts to enhance motivation and well-being. > ---------------------------------- > > > From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 12:42:18 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:42:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Alternatives_compared_to_Maslow=E2=80=99s_hierar?= =?utf-8?q?chy_of_needs?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: re alternative to Maslow - Where's the data? Why not ask the AI to assemble studies supporting each theory and see which ones are supported by actual experiments and studies? Every theory will have some common sense support. In psychology we don't lack theories: we lack data showing support or nonsupport. Anybody can come up with a theory based, of course, on previous theories. bill w On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:15?PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This may be of interest. > I asked an AI to do the analysis for me. > BillK > > > Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a well-known theory in the field of > psychology that suggests individuals have a set of hierarchical needs that > must be fulfilled in order to achieve self-actualization. However, there > are several alternative theories that provide different perspectives on > human motivation and needs. In this analysis, we will examine six > alternative theories to Maslow's hierarchy of needs: ERG theory, Two-factor > theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory), Self-determination theory, > McClelland?s Human Motivation Theory, Nain model, and Murray?s System of > Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs). > > 1. ERG Theory: > ERG theory, proposed by Clayton Alderfer, is an alternative to Maslow's > hierarchy of needs. ERG stands for Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. > According to this theory, individuals have three core needs: existence > needs (similar to physiological and safety needs in Maslow's hierarchy), > relatedness needs (similar to social and esteem needs), and growth needs > (similar to self-actualization). Unlike Maslow's hierarchy, ERG theory > suggests that these needs can be activated simultaneously and that > frustration in one need can lead individuals to focus on other needs. > > 2. Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory): > Herzberg's Two-factor theory focuses on the factors that influence job > satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to this theory, there are two > sets of factors: hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors include > aspects such as salary, working conditions, and company policies, which can > lead to dissatisfaction if not met but do not necessarily result in > satisfaction when met. On the other hand, motivators include factors like > recognition, achievement, and personal growth, which can lead to job > satisfaction when present. This theory emphasizes the importance of > intrinsic motivators in fulfilling higher-level needs. > > 3. Self-determination theory: > Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Edward Deci and Richard > Ryan, focuses on the role of intrinsic motivation in human behavior. SDT > suggests that individuals have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, > competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the need for self-direction > and control over one's actions, competence is the need to feel capable and > effective in one's activities, and relatedness is the need for social > connection and belongingness. SDT posits that when these needs are > satisfied, individuals experience intrinsic motivation and well-being. > > 4. McClelland?s Human Motivation Theory: > McClelland's Human Motivation Theory focuses on three primary needs: > achievement, affiliation, and power. According to this theory, individuals > vary in the strength of these needs, which influence their behavior and > motivation. The need for achievement refers to the desire to excel and > accomplish challenging tasks, the need for affiliation relates to the > desire for social interaction and belongingness, and the need for power > reflects the desire to influence others and control one's environment. > McClelland's theory suggests that individuals with a high need for > achievement are more likely to be motivated by challenging goals and > feedback. > > 5. Nain model: > The Nain model, developed by Dr. Raj Nain, proposes a different > perspective on human motivation. This model suggests that individuals have > four core needs: physical well-being, emotional well-being, mental > well-being, and spiritual well-being. According to Nain, these needs are > interconnected and must be fulfilled holistically for overall well-being. > The model emphasizes the importance of balance across these dimensions of > well-being. > > 6. Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs): > Murray's System of Needs, also known as the Theory of Psychogenic Needs, > was developed by Henry Murray. This theory suggests that individuals have a > set of psychogenic needs that drive their behavior. These needs include > achievement, affiliation, power, autonomy, dominance, order, play, > understanding, and counteraction. Murray's theory emphasizes the role of > unconscious needs in shaping human motivation and behavior. > > In conclusion, these alternative theories to Maslow's hierarchy of needs > provide different perspectives on human motivation and needs. While > Maslow's hierarchy suggests a hierarchical progression of needs, these > alternative theories propose different categorizations and emphasize > various aspects of motivation. Each theory offers valuable insights into > understanding human behavior and can be applied in different contexts to > enhance motivation and well-being. > ---------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 13:43:19 2023 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 14:43:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Alternatives_compared_to_Maslow=E2=80=99s_hierar?= =?utf-8?q?chy_of_needs?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Sept 2023 at 13:45, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > re alternative to Maslow - Where's the data? Why not ask the AI to > assemble studies supporting each theory and see which ones are supported by > actual experiments and studies? Every theory will have some common sense > support. In psychology we don't lack theories: we lack data showing > support or nonsupport. Anybody can come up with a theory based, of course, > on previous theories. bill w > _______________________________________________ > > OK. AI says that some studies have been done. Which you would expect, really, as psychologists try to support their pet theories. :) You could use the summaries to see which theory you like, then search for more specific info. BillK Answer: Several studies have been conducted on the theories of motivation, including Maslow's hierarchy of needs and its alternatives. 1. *ERG Theory*: The ERG theory has been used to understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts. For example, it has been applied to understand the motivation of employees in the workplace, with the goal of improving job satisfaction and performance ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . 1. *Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory)*: Herzberg's theory has been extensively studied and applied in various contexts, including leadership, motivation management, and organizational development. For example, it has been used to develop motivation management programs and to improve employee job satisfaction ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . 1. *Self-Determination Theory*: This theory has been used to understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts, including education and healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the mental health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . 1. *McClellan?s Human Motivation Theory*: This theory has been used to understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts, including education and healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the mental health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . 1. *Nain Model*: The Nain model has been used to understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts, including education and healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the mental health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . 1. *Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs)*: This theory has been used to understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts, including education and healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the mental health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . In conclusion, each of these theories has been used in various studies to understand the motivation of individuals in different contexts. While these studies may vary in their methodologies and findings, they all contribute to our understanding of human motivation and needs. ---------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 17:57:11 2023 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 10:57:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Alternatives_compared_to_Maslow=E2=80=99s_hierar?= =?utf-8?q?chy_of_needs?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Like evolution underlies all of biology, evolutionary psychology is the level below all psychology. Behavior is just as subject to evolutionary selection as any physical trait. So psychological traits like capture-bonding (the trait behind Stockholm syndrome and many other hard-to-understand human behaviors such as battered wife) were selected in our evolutionary past. Capture-bonding is particularly easy to understand its evolutionary origins. (Around 10% of our female ancestors were captured.) The levels of Maslow's hierarchy (except perhaps the very top) are all related to reproductive success. Self-esteem (for example) is the internal representation of status and status is an essential element of reproductive success, particularly for males. Keith On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 3:15?AM efc--- via extropy-chat wrote: > > Thank you Bill, I think the AI came up with much of the same that was in > the link you sent. Very nice summary! =) > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023, BillK via extropy-chat wrote: > > > This may be of interest. > > I asked an AI to do the analysis for me. > > BillK > > > > > > Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a well-known theory in the field of psychology that suggests individuals have a set of hierarchical > > needs that must be fulfilled in order to achieve self-actualization. However, there are several alternative theories that provide > > different perspectives on human motivation and needs. In this analysis, we will examine six alternative theories to Maslow's > > hierarchy of needs: ERG theory, Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory), Self-determination theory, McClelland?s Human > > Motivation Theory, Nain model, and Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs). > > > > 1. ERG Theory: > > ERG theory, proposed by Clayton Alderfer, is an alternative to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. ERG stands for Existence, Relatedness, > > and Growth. According to this theory, individuals have three core needs: existence needs (similar to physiological and safety needs > > in Maslow's hierarchy), relatedness needs (similar to social and esteem needs), and growth needs (similar to self-actualization). > > Unlike Maslow's hierarchy, ERG theory suggests that these needs can be activated simultaneously and that frustration in one need can > > lead individuals to focus on other needs. > > > > 2. Two-factor theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory): > > Herzberg's Two-factor theory focuses on the factors that influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to this theory, > > there are two sets of factors: hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors include aspects such as salary, working conditions, > > and company policies, which can lead to dissatisfaction if not met but do not necessarily result in satisfaction when met. On the > > other hand, motivators include factors like recognition, achievement, and personal growth, which can lead to job satisfaction when > > present. This theory emphasizes the importance of intrinsic motivators in fulfilling higher-level needs. > > > > 3. Self-determination theory: > > Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, focuses on the role of intrinsic motivation in human > > behavior. SDT suggests that individuals have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers > > to the need for self-direction and control over one's actions, competence is the need to feel capable and effective in one's > > activities, and relatedness is the need for social connection and belongingness. SDT posits that when these needs are satisfied, > > individuals experience intrinsic motivation and well-being. > > > > 4. McClelland?s Human Motivation Theory: > > McClelland's Human Motivation Theory focuses on three primary needs: achievement, affiliation, and power. According to this theory, > > individuals vary in the strength of these needs, which influence their behavior and motivation. The need for achievement refers to > > the desire to excel and accomplish challenging tasks, the need for affiliation relates to the desire for social interaction and > > belongingness, and the need for power reflects the desire to influence others and control one's environment. McClelland's theory > > suggests that individuals with a high need for achievement are more likely to be motivated by challenging goals and feedback. > > > > 5. Nain model: > > The Nain model, developed by Dr. Raj Nain, proposes a different perspective on human motivation. This model suggests that individuals > > have four core needs: physical well-being, emotional well-being, mental well-being, and spiritual well-being. According to Nain, > > these needs are interconnected and must be fulfilled holistically for overall well-being. The model emphasizes the importance of > > balance across these dimensions of well-being. > > > > 6. Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs): > > Murray's System of Needs, also known as the Theory of Psychogenic Needs, was developed by Henry Murray. This theory suggests that > > individuals have a set of psychogenic needs that drive their behavior. These needs include achievement, affiliation, power, autonomy, > > dominance, order, play, understanding, and counteraction. Murray's theory emphasizes the role of unconscious needs in shaping human > > motivation and behavior. > > > > In conclusion, these alternative theories to Maslow's hierarchy of needs provide different perspectives on human motivation and > > needs. While Maslow's hierarchy suggests a hierarchical progression of needs, these alternative theories propose different > > categorizations and emphasize various aspects of motivation. Each theory offers valuable insights into understanding human behavior > > and can be applied in different contexts to enhance motivation and well-being. > > ---------------------------------- > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 18:00:44 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:00:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Alternatives_compared_to_Maslow=E2=80=99s_hierar?= =?utf-8?q?chy_of_needs?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This has gone beyond the time I am willing to spend on it. What is needed is a metaanalysis of each theory, which summarizes many studies done to test the theory. The AI did not do that. Where there are lots of theories trying to explain something,we know that not one of them is proven superior to the others. I don't think we are going to find the meaning of life in these theories. Look at the characteristics each theory advocates: anyone can make a similar list and give his theory a name,then look for experimental support. Psychology is really bad about coming up with all kinds of theories, and poor about finding support for them. All of them make common sense but fail in the data area. bill w On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 8:46?AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Sept 2023 at 13:45, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> re alternative to Maslow - Where's the data? Why not ask the AI to >> assemble studies supporting each theory and see which ones are supported by >> actual experiments and studies? Every theory will have some common sense >> support. In psychology we don't lack theories: we lack data showing >> support or nonsupport. Anybody can come up with a theory based, of course, >> on previous theories. bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > OK. AI says that some studies have been done. Which you would expect, > really, as psychologists try to support their pet theories. :) > You could use the summaries to see which theory you like, then search for > more specific info. > > BillK > Answer: > > Several studies have been conducted on the theories of motivation, > including Maslow's hierarchy of needs and its alternatives. > > 1. *ERG Theory*: The ERG theory has been used to understand the > motivation of individuals in various contexts. For example, it has been > applied to understand the motivation of employees in the workplace, with > the goal of improving job satisfaction and performance ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > . > > > 1. *Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg?s Motivation Theory)*: Herzberg's > theory has been extensively studied and applied in various contexts, > including leadership, motivation management, and organizational > development. For example, it has been used to develop motivation management > programs and to improve employee job satisfaction ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > . > > > 1. *Self-Determination Theory*: This theory has been used to > understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts, including > education and healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop > interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the mental > health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > . > > > 1. *McClellan?s Human Motivation Theory*: This theory has been used to > understand the motivation of individuals in various contexts, including > education and healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop > interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the mental > health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > . > > > 1. *Nain Model*: The Nain model has been used to understand the > motivation of individuals in various contexts, including education and > healthcare. For example, it has been used to develop interventions to > improve academic achievement and to improve the mental health of > individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > . > > > 1. *Murray?s System of Needs (Theory of Psychogenic Needs)*: This > theory has been used to understand the motivation of individuals in various > contexts, including education and healthcare. For example, it has been used > to develop interventions to improve academic achievement and to improve the > mental health of individuals ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > . > > In conclusion, each of these theories has been used in various studies to > understand the motivation of individuals in different contexts. While these > studies may vary in their methodologies and findings, they all contribute > to our understanding of human motivation and needs. > > ---------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 18:34:21 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:34:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] little puzzle Message-ID: What word, the same in all languages (I think), is likely the most uttered word worldwide? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 18:54:09 2023 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 11:54:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] little puzzle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 11:36?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What word, the same in all languages (I think), is likely the most uttered > word worldwide? > Do you mean "ow" or "ouch"? If so, it is not the same in all languages; for instance, Japanese uses "itai". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 30 18:56:59 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 11:56:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] little puzzle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d9f3cf$e4ad9020$ae08b060$@rainier66.com> Subject: Re: [ExI] little puzzle On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 11:36?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: What word, the same in all languages (I think), is likely the most uttered word worldwide? Billw OK. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Sep 30 22:06:08 2023 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:06:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] little puzzle In-Reply-To: <004801d9f3cf$e4ad9020$ae08b060$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d9f3cf$e4ad9020$ae08b060$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike got it - okay. I think ADrian's answer of 'ouch' might fit too. But I'll bet OK is said far more often. In a medical setting Ok is added to just about every question ,even though it's not a question: 'We're just going to take one leg off, OK?' (try saying 'NO' and see them fluster - the 'choice' you are given is almost always illusory). bill w On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:58?PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] little puzzle > > > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 11:36?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > What word, the same in all languages (I think), is likely the most uttered > word worldwide? > > > > Billw > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 30 22:16:53 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 15:16:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] little puzzle In-Reply-To: References: <004801d9f3cf$e4ad9020$ae08b060$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00bd01d9f3eb$d1ad25f0$750771d0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Saturday, 30 September, 2023 3:06 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] little puzzle >?Spike got it - okay. I think ADrian's answer of 'ouch' might fit too. But I'll bet OK is said far more often. In a medical setting Ok is added to just about every question ,even though it's not a question: 'We're just going to take one leg off, OK?' (try saying 'NO' and see them fluster - the 'choice' you are given is almost always illusory). bill w I had an advantage Billw: I live in an area where everybody is from somewhere. I have overheard conversations in Spanish, in German, in American redneck, Ukrainian, Russian, every known African language, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Vietnamese and even French (we try to keep that one quiet.) In every one of those languages, I hear them come to OK, liberally interspersed in a discussion and almost always at the end of a phone conversation. That means the same in every language: I agree, good, let?s do that. Every language on the planet, every conference, every negotiation, everything needs that term and they have all borrowed it from whoever invented it. Who or where was that? spike On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:58?PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Subject: Re: [ExI] little puzzle On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 11:36?AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: What word, the same in all languages (I think), is likely the most uttered word worldwide? Billw OK. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Sep 30 22:29:03 2023 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 15:29:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] little puzzle In-Reply-To: <00bd01d9f3eb$d1ad25f0$750771d0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d9f3cf$e4ad9020$ae08b060$@rainier66.com> <00bd01d9f3eb$d1ad25f0$750771d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00d301d9f3ed$851d7800$8f586800$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com . >?Spike got it - okay. ? bill w >?I had an advantage Billw: I live in an area where everybody is from somewhere. I have overheard conversations in Spanish?spike Bill if you know any real Cubans, you will like this guy. I nearly wet my diapers laughing at his routine. If you are in a hurry, fast forward to 2:30 and listen to one minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmNOe94Kz3Q Good politically incorrect humor by a guy with a license to tell it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: