[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Sat Sep 16 05:08:01 UTC 2023
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:51 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Good evening Jason,
>
Good morning Daniel,
> I have a feeling that this dialogue is slowly getting to a stand still,
> at least from my side. I do not think I have the knowledge to interpret
> or understand what you are saying, (as seen below where I thought you
> were talking about quantum mechanics but in fact you were talkingabout
> ensemble-type theories)
It was my fault for the confusing example. My only point, which I think you
agreed to an extent with in the other thread, is that if a theory makes
multiple predictions, (like general relativity), and we test many of them
and find the ones we have tested to be true, then it increases our
confidence in the theory and thereby increases our confidence in the theory
itself. If that theory makes other predictions which we have not yet
tested, then we have *some confidence* in those untested predictions.
Now there are a number of theories in science which we have tested and
confirmed, which we have obtained direct observational evidence for, which,
as it happens, also predict elements of reality beyond what we can see in
this universe.
Some, like eternal inflation, predict other big bangs, each forming it's
own own "bubble universe".
Others, like special relativity, predict the existence of past and future
points in time (which exists eternally and concurrently along with this
present time).
Still others, like the theory of an expanding universe, predict untold
trillions of galaxies we will never see or receive light from.
Science is full of theories that predict things we cannot interact with.
These are nonetheless predictions of theories we have tested, and obtained
observational evidence for.
It seems we have two choices:
1. Reject these theories (for predicting things we cannot see or test).
2. Accept these theories (along with their implication that reality is
bigger than what we can see from our present vantage point).
I don't think we should reject these theories on account of them implying
reality is bigger than what we can see. Why should we suppose we should be
in a position to survey all of reality?
and as the nr of books and links is increasing
> that I would have to go through, to provide you with good answers, I
> find that the time it would take me is constantly expanding. And that is
> not even taking into account my bad math and physics skills. ;) Ok, they
> might be better than the math and physics skills of the average person,
> but not anywhere close to the skills of this list.
>
I think you may be selling yourself short. We all begin somewhere. I did
not major in math or physics, I've just tried to read a lot as science as a
subject has always interested me. Much of what I have learned has come from
discussions with others on lists like this one.
I also don't think any special math or science background is required to
understand most of the arguments used for different QM interpretations.
> So I feel that by continuing, I am not adding anything, and I would not
> be able to appreciate fully all your arguments and everything you are
> saying.
>
I would be happy to answer any questions, privately or on the list, you
might have if anything I say requires additional explanation.
> But, let's see. I'll have a look below, and let's see how it goes, but I
> feel like I'm approaching my limit in terms of knowledge and time, and
> as Wittgenstein said... "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be
> silent". ;)
>
I would make one amendment to Wittgenstein: "Should you venture where one
cannot speak, ask questions!"
I'm sure if things I say are unclear to you, there are others on this list
it is unclear to also.
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
> Ahhh... this I know nothing about. I misunderstood. So that would
> probably mean a new beginning for me and a lot of reading I suspect.
>
I would guess this work is so new and esoteric they it remains unknown to
99.9% of physicists. But the point is really simple:
No one knew why nature is quantum mechanical. It appeared one of the most
profound mysteries, it tormented many of the founders of the theory.
Wheeler spent his whole life trying in vain to understand why it was this
way.
And only very recently have a few researchers offered a plausible answer.
The one thing their explanations share in common is they are ultimate
ensemble-type theories (an infinite comprehensive reality where all
possibilities exist). As it turns out, if you start with such an
assumption, then you can answer why the universe is quantum mechanical.
> > 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.
>
> Here we have the problem. In my current state, with so many years
> between me now, and me in university, this means very little to me.
> Therefore I cannot comment on what you say. I would like to, but I
> cannot. Very sorry. =(
>
No worries, I can give you a one line summary:
Starting from the assumption that every possible observation exists, you
can derive the Shrodinger equation (the key equation of quantum mechanics).
> > 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.
>
> I think this might enter Tegmark territory, and my opinion still stands
> unchanged. We have observed equations predict events. We then
> extrapolate things we will (most likely) never be able to prove. They
> will forever remain extrapolations.
>
Every time we use any physical theory to make a prediction, we are
performing an extrapolation. There are an infinite number of potential
extrapolations any given theory can make. But we only ever test a finite
number (that is, an infinitesimal fraction) of them. If we are confident in
a theory, why can't we be confident in the untested predictions of that
theory?
> Lawrence post on the extropolis list struck a chord with me, and I think
> it perhaps better illustrates my view of the difference between proof
> and extrapolations:
>
> "People who go down the rabbit hole of quantum interpretations find
> themselves in a nest of thorns and nettles. No matter what
> interpretation it is the attempt to make it something derivable or the
> single only consistent interpretation leads into a growing
> mire of complexity that does not close. Carroll and others working on MWI
> are clearly entering this. Other interpretations similarly
> hit this reef. The best interpretation is no interpretation. All
> interpretations are attempts to make quantum mechanics transduced
> into our ordinary way of thinking, but QM is logically different in a way
> that makes this impossible. As Wittgenstein put it, "That
> which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence." That is the best
> advice with respect to quantum interpretations."
>
This is one reason why I stress that MW is not an interpretation. It's just
the raw math and equations of QM, accepted as true. You don't need to add
any further interpretation of them.
> The fun coincidence here is that I thought of that quote before going to
> bed, and then woke up and read it in Lawrence message. Maybe information is
> leaking between universes after all? ;)
>
Interesting.
> Regardless, this illustrates something I thought a lot about, and that
> is moving from equations to verbal descriptions. That aspect of
> theoretical physics, moving from nrs and equations, to putting it into
> words, has always fascinated me, and I would not be surprised if that
> might perhaps be a source of error and confusion. Our words and
> languagesare not mathematical and number based, so maybe a distortion
> does take place when we translate between the two languages?
>
I don't really see that as the issue here. CI says the universe does not
obey the equations of QM always. It's not merely using different words to
explain the same math, it's proposing that the math of the theory is wrong,
and that reality is governed by different math than is it expressed by the
equations of QM. This different math would describe the process of
observation and measurement which would say when the universe stops obeying
QM during wave function collapse. But no advocate of CI, other than perhaps
Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would be. If
advocates of CI did propose alternate mathematical descriptions for their
theory, it would be clear that MW and Copenhagen are different theories. CI
refuses to make such specifications which keeps the waters muddied, and
maintains the illusion that no possible test can be done to distinguish
between them.
> > > 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.
>
> But nothing prevents us from not doing it either. The one thing that
> does help is observable evidence. And extrapolating to other universes
> and other realms I think definitely makes that more difficult. The tool
> "breaks down" so to speak.
>
Can we not reach agreement that relativity implies that other points in
time exist, even though we can never travel to these other times to confirm
their existence?
> > 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.
>
> Some might be, other might not. Using the same starting points, people
> do end up in different locations. That is a fact, but the good news is
> that the scientific method and time will correct that.
>
Yes, when people disagree they can check their assumptions to make sure
they're the same or find where they differ. If they are the same but they
have different conclusions, then they can check the steps of their math or
deduction to see where one person diverged.
> As I said, when smart people created and performed the experiments that
> prove MWI (or any other interpretation) beyond doubt, I'll gladly join
> the choire if I understand the proof. If it is not possible to produce a
> proof that I can understand, I'll withhold judgement until I do, or
> until there is a comfortable consensus, although that can be deadly too.
>
I think there already are proofs you could understand. Given your technical
background, and interest in cryptography, I would start with the ability of
quantum computers to factor RSA keys. All you need consider is Deutsch's
question: when a quantum computer factors a number that requires the
evaluation of 10^500 unique states, where is that computation being
performed (when our universe has just 10^80 atoms)? The right answer comes
out, but where did it come from? How was it computed?
> > 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.
>
> Of course they are. By definition not all quantum mechanical
> interpretations can all be right, so there will be a lot of very smart
> and disappointed people, once a winner emerges, and then I guess we'll
> see a paradigm shift perhaps?
>
> > 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 may be overly optimistic about how quickly these things happen.
It took 100 years for people to accept Copernicus's idea after his book was
published. People do not expand their ontologies readily.
>
> > 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.
>
> Nice methodology. ;) I've seen other proposals for other experiments
> which have or have not proven other interpretations.
I am interested to see these if you can provide links.
So we'll see. As
> you said in an earlier message, the MWI:ers are increasing, but
> Copenhagen is still in the lead. On the other hand, science is not a
> democracy, so all it takes is one person being right and one proof. This
> is why I do not like my own approach of looking at the comfortable
> consensus. But, not being a theoretical physicist, what else can such a
> man do? =(
>
Yes this is a big problem. There's so many specialized disciplines an not
enough time to become proficient in more than a m small few of them.
Perhaps the best bet for people on our position is to read books by
physicists for popular audiences. Read two books by two prominent
representatives from opposing sides of an issue, and weigh the strengths of
their arguments.
> > 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?
>
> Yes and no. A time proven consensus of scientists will definitely tilt
> me in favour of the concept. The other thing which annoys me, and I know
> you have tried to explain it, but I do not understand it, is that there
> can be no bi-directional information flow between them. So to me, it
> seems like a pointless theory.
I wouldn't say it's pointless. I think understanding MW as an implication
of QM was crucial to the conception and invention of quantum computers.
Both Feynman and Deutsch believe in many worlds, and both contributed to
their realization.
I think your Tegmark book and my reply to
> that page you quoted would probably be as far as I would be willing to
> go. So I'm not in principle opposed to MWI due to any spiritual grounds,
> and as you say, once a time tested consensus appears, I will be more
> likely to accept that theory, and... I do hope that by then, the
> explanations and experiments which will have created this consensus will
> have been translated into language and explanation which someone like me
> can understand.
>
Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" book. I
might recommend that if you want to see his best attempt at explaining it.
> > 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?
>
> No, I do not see them as equivalent. Instead of me defining the
> difference between these 5 terms, take me to the next step of your
> argument, and I'll take it from there.
>
Sorry I was unclear. I did not mean to compare all five, but rather to ask
to compare (math, logic, reason, and philosophy) vs. language games.
Most nominalists say, for example, that math is only a language game. So I
was curious if this was the basis for saying the same of other fields, such
as theology.
> > 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", 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."
>
> Well, since I do not believe in god, theology for me is just wordplay.
>
There are an infinite number of possible conceptions of God. So I do not
know what you mean when you say you do not believe in God.
Many religions define God as the cause of existence. If you believe this
universe has a cause then you believe in the God of these religions.
Sikhs, among other religions, define God as truth. If you believe in Truth,
then you believe in the god of the Sikhs.
Hindus define God as Brahman, and Brahman is equivalent to Atman
(consciousness). If you believe in consciousness then you believe in the
god of the Hindus.
Many religions define God as the creator of the world. If this universe is
a simulation, then the universe has such a creator God.
And so on...
So the statement that one doesn't believe in God is rather empty, absent
further specification.
To me, it is meaningless. If you do believe in god, I fully respect
> that, and of course it follows that theology is important to you. Since
> I do not, my opinion is that it gives us nothing.
>
Science and rationality can be applied far more broadly than most are
aware. It can penetrate questions and topics usually assumed to belong
forever to the sphere of religion, such as questions like: why we exist,
why we are here, the meaning of life, and what happens after we die, do we
have free will, etc.
It's not that theology is important to me, what's important is that science
not shy away from any subject, including theology. Doing so would be a
disservice to both science and religion.
> > 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 there is no rational evidence of god.
You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of any? The two
are very different statements.
The first interpretation would serve to close one's mind to anything that
make shake that believe. It would lead one to avoid reading the links I
provided (to preserve that *atheistic* belief).
The second interpretation would, on the other hand, encourage one to seek
out such evidence and would lead one to read the links I provided (to test
your *agnostic* belief and see if any such evidence is out there).
I think we live in a
> material world we do not fully understand, but I have never seen or read
> a proof of god that holds.
>
God or gods (defined as beings of vastly greater capacity than us) fall out
naturally in many theories:
- Spatially infinite universes
- Mathematical Platonism
- Quantum Multiverse theories
- String theory landscapes
- Simulation Hypothesis
- Technological Singularity
You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can explain
how it leads to beings that are superior to ourselves, and one's that can
create reality (which they could exert compete control over), and moreover
they can also "save souls" of any beings they might find.
Any evidence we find that supports any of the above theories can be
considered as adding evidence to the theory that God or gods exists.
> If that would not be the case, I think that we'd all be theists by now.
>
I doubt it. The evidence will be when you observe how this post will not
convert any atheist on this list into a theist. If pressed, they will pick
a specific definition of God, like "an old man in the clouds who cares
about our what people do in their bedrooms" and thereby refute the
existence of God.
In fact, should science manage to prove god, it would not be god as
> commonly defined, but just another part of nature.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes! I think this is incredibly important and I worry about exactly
> that. However, my opinion of god is that the only way to know him is
> through subjective, uncommunicable experience. Without that and without
> faith, any proof will fail. With faith or with that deep experience, any
> proof can serve to fortify your belief.
>
What about the Gods that follow as implications of the theories I mention
above? No subjective incommunicable experience is needed there.
> But yes, I do have a fear of exactly the thing you say there, and Karl
> Jaspers also writes about it. He also writes about using religion as a
> crutch, dogma, you never question god, dogma or your experience.
> Likewise, he writes about science as a crutch, reducing man to an object
> and closing him off.
>
Valid concerns.
> I like how you point out that agnosticism might be another crutch. I
> will think more about that.
>
:-)
> On the other hand, existentialism is not to everyones taste, so if you
> are more a fan of the analytical tradition then you'd better avoid him.
>
I don't think I've ever quite understood what essentialism is.
;)
>
> But since this is a discussion on the border between science and faith
> (ok, I'm being dramatic here) I thought that the quote and some of the
> things he writes about was fitting.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Again, here I must disappoint you. I could only point to articles that
> say experiment X to prove Y, or Z to prove R, but I do not know myself,
> and you have probably found them yourself.
That's just it, I am saying I am not aware of anyone even attempting to
explain quantum computer not relying on MW.
If you have seen these, please share them.
So here I have to stop.
> However, is Deutsch the only guy?
He's just one of the more prominent living advocates of MW, given he
designed the first quantum computer. Other well known living proponents are
Sean Carroll and Max Tegmark. Among past physicists who advocated for it
are Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Bryce DeWitt, Murray Gell-Mann, and
Steven Weinberg.
I am certain each interpretation has
> their champion and I amcertain Deutsch happens to be a champion of MWI.
>
I am not aware of any equivalently prominent living champions of CI.
Penrose might fall into this category, but his theory is something
different from conventional CI, he proposes a quantum gravity effect that
causes collapse. It is therefore a different theory than existing/accepted
QM.
People who subscribe to CI tend to be the people who don't really care
about interpretational issues, and don't have a strong opinion on it.
Therefore you don't find the "champions of it" as you might find for those
who subscribe to "non-standard" interpretations. CI, being the standard,
and what everyone was taught by their college professor, is just accepted
at face value, without further consideration or question.
> > 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
>
> Well it does say believes, and I also think he sounds a bit dismissive
> or arrogant. I could say that he speaks obfuscatory nonsense, and in
> fact, the equations are obfuscatory nonsense, but I would give him the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
He is only issuing the challenge: if you believe in a single universe,
explain how quantum computers work. I don't find this challenge obfuscatory.
> Likewise, what he thinks is obfuscatory nonsense, might have meaning,
> just that he doesn't understand it.
>
The thing is no one is even offering this "obfuscatory nonsense". There's
simply silence.
The situation is analogous to asking a young-earth creationist for an
explanation of dinosaur bones.
Deutsch is pointing to the bones and asking: how could these bones exist if
the world is only 6,000 years old?
Here, Deutsch is pointing to a quantum computer and asking: how could it
factor a 500-digit number if there is just one universe?
> But, again, I concede that this is far above my level,
It shouldn't be. His argument doesn't require understanding any math beyond
exponents, namely that:
10^500 >> 10^80.
so I, at least,
> won't judge. I do still hold the opinion that there are many other
> people who are equally arrogant and faithful to their own
> interpretation.
>
If you listen to Deutsch you will find he doesn't have an arrogant
demeanor. For example:
https://youtu.be/Kj2lxDf9R3Y?si=4RPRMYLJ8wx3QK1I
Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I hadn't seen
before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been made when he was still
writing Fabric of Reality:
https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd
> > 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:
>
> I'm not convinced that the most profitable way to continue this is to
> amass quotes for various positions.
>
Granted. I thought they would help explain why I don't call or consider MW
to be an interpretation.
> > David Deutsch says 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.
>
> To me, it is not interesting what Deutsch says, it is more interesting
> what Deutsch explains. If Deutsch is not able to explain it in a way
> that makes the majority accept it, then that is a failing of Deutsch.
>
I would start with fabric of reality, if you are interested in his
explanation. Or if you are waiting for a majority to be converted to MW,
simply know that it might take another 50 or another 100 years.
If you want to know the answer now, you will need to me put some work in to
understand the issues. But I think this could be done in a few hours
contemplating the question of where is the computation being performed when
the 500 digit number is factored.
Feel free to ask me any other questions related to this that might come to
you. I will do my best to try to answer them.
> >
> > Also: "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.”
>
> Cynicism and anger I do not like. Incomprehension on the other hand, I
> can fully embrace. Again, if he cannot explain it in a way to make it
> comprehensible it is on him. But anger and cynicism he does not deserve,
> there I support him.
>
��
> > 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. :-)
>
> My biggest insight so far is how complex and ground breaking the subject
> matter is, and how little I know. But I also think, looking at your
> quotes, that there is a lot of emotions and ego involved when the giants
> are debating this, and that is sad.
>
I don't see the situation as the greats debating these ideas back and
forth. I see it more as the momentum of millions of practicing physicists
raised under CI through their formative years in college, studiously
shutting up and calculating, while a comparatively small percentage
bothered to ask deeper questions of what does this mean, (what is an
observer, what is a measurement, how does wave function collapse happen,
etc.) being led to see the problems with Copenhagen, and realizing collapse
isn't real, and thereby come to accept what the math of the equations have
been saying all along, bringing them to MW.
Then these MW converts try to wake up the millions of others who remain
with CI, but find they stubbornly don't care about the thorny issues of
what measurement or observation really are, so long as they can use the
theory to get the right answers. And so, the CI adherents remain CI
adherents.
> > 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%20
> >
> some%20nice%20body%20of%20water%E2%80%A6or%20the%20garbage%2C%20maybe%20that%20way%20I'll%20end%20up%20in%20the%20correct%20paralle
> >
> l%20universe%20to%20meet%20up%20w%2F%20Daddy.&pg=PT393&printsec=frontcover
>
> Tragic. =( Wouldn't that be a nightmare if MWI became the norm, if that
> increased?
>
I don't know that it would necessarily increase. MW makes suicide
subjectively impossible: you would always continue along those branches
where you necessarily survive.
There is also much solace that comes from the truth of many worlds. Much of
what makes a young person's death tragic stems from all their unrealized
potential and all the experiences they won't get to have. But if many
worlds is true, that potential is realized and they do get to have all
those experiences (in other branches of the multiverse).
> > Max Tegmark also said: "Perhaps I'll do the experiment one day--when I'm
> old and crazy."
>
> The man has a great sense of humour! =)
>
�� Definitely.
> > Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very
> consistent! =)
> >
> > I appreciate that. Thank you! Likewise with you and your agnosticism.
>
> Thank you Jason, and thank you for the great idea of the risk of being
> too agnostic!
>
You're welcome Daniel, thank you for making my evening so thought-filled!
> > 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.
>
> Why do they say "tend" and not "always"?
>
Good question. I think as is often the case, when we find something that
seems like an unnecessary complication, it's not until much later we
realize: oh no actually that explains a great deal more, or that things if
it weren't like that, life wouldn't be possible.
So in the short term, theories may not always seem as simple as possible,
but often this is temporary. For example, general relativity is more
complex than Newton's gravity, but general relativity also incorporated
everything of special relativity too, so in that sense it was still
simplifying overall.
Or consider the discovery of the neutrino. It seemed at first like a
completely extraneous particle. But later we found it plays a critical role
in releasing elements out of collapsing stars. We wouldn't have oxygen or
water if not for neutrinos. All the oxygen would fall into a black hole and
would be lost forever if not for these neutrinos. ☺️
> > > 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.
>
> Or simply the material world? Or simply nothing at all? The null set?
>
The platonic world of mathematical truths would exist whether or not the
physical world existed. It is necessary and self-existent.
The same can't be said for the material 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.
>
> I think it goes back to what we discussed about doubting everything and
> degrees of certainty. But occams razor cuts many ways, especially if you
> leave the realm of computation and equations.
>
> > 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. :-)
>
> That's the beauty of the agnostic position. Maybe I 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?
>
> The fact that it hurts when I get punched in the face, at the same time,
> it does not hurt when someone in the other world tries to punch me in
> the face.
>
Someone might have argued against Galileo, using this same reasoning, and
conclude the earth doesn't move, because they can't feel it move (even
though Galileo's theory explains why we won't feel it move).
MW explains why you aren't aware of the other events in other branches
which aren't this one.
> > 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?
>
> Well, to be honest, yes, outside the scope of this discussion I do
> consider the question meaningless. ;)
>
Do you think there is an answer?
For example would you say that exactly one of the following two sentences
is true:
A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0
B) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1
I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even if we can't
know which one is true.
> If it is impossible to determine it, yes, its a pretty meaningless
> question.
>
> > 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 think that question is meaningless if there is no bi-directional flow
> of information between these universes. Entertaining for sure, as
> fiction, but in terms of any other context, pretty meaningless.
>
When would you say that 17 became prime?
A) it's always been prime
B) After the big bang
C) When 17-year cicadas evolved
D) When man invented numbers
E) When man first counted to 17
F) When humans defined prime numbers
G) When the first person proved 17 was prime
H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime
I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 is prime
> > > 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 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) 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
> )
>
> I don't see how that would follow from my position.
Mathematical truths must be constant and observer independent. If they
change over time, based on what we have done, e.g., if there were 174626847
factors of zero yesterday and 174626848 today, then you could prove two
mutually inconsistent things which leads to the principle of explosion.
The number of primes, the factors of zero, and digits of Pi must all be
infinite, of math is to work.
We have the
> concepts, formulas, we perform calculations, and we can reason about
> infinity, but at the end of the day, it is just a language and activity
> in the brain of a being in the material world. Without us, all
> mathematical truths are meaningless.
The 17 year cicada evolved long before humans. It evolved to have a large
prime period cycle as a large prime cycle is evolutionarily advantageous.
They only exist when we interpret
> them.
>
This seems like idealism, only applied to mathematical objects. If all the
mathematicians go to sleep at the same time, does the ratio of a circle's
circumference to its diameter stop being 3.14259... ?
> This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have happened
> unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;)
>
I feel we are writing a book together. ��
Best,
Jason
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/20230916/d76cd5af/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list