[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Wed Sep 13 18:57:21 UTC 2023
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
>> > <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/20230913/5558f8d7/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list