[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Tue Sep 12 23:55:52 UTC 2023
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
> > <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/20230912/c7742293/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list