[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 19:35:34 UTC 2023
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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_number>", 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
<https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-has-many-problems-20181018/#:~:text=Some%20of%20them%20insist%20that,simply%20what%20quantum%20mechanics%20is.>
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
<https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/14/quote-of-the-day-3/>:
"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
<https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/178/mode/2up?q=copenhagen>
:
"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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger
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
<https://archive.org/details/ourmathematicalu0000tegm_o1e8/page/180/mode/2up?q=copenhagen>
:
"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
<https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html>: "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 Schrödinger 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
<https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/quantum.html#immortality>: "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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
<https://www.google.com/search?q=e%5E%282Pi*i%29> 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
> > > <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/20230914/36d636b0/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list