[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Fri Sep 1 00:52:05 UTC 2023
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 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230831/9d50bfb4/attachment.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list