[ExI] teachers
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 1 00:17:54 UTC 2023
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 Gödel 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 <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> > 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230831/abd7b530/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list