[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Thu Sep 21 09:53:57 UTC 2023
Good evening Jason,
Wife is sleeping, so now I can pursue my guilty pleasures such as
continuing the mega-thread! ;)
On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I think that is reasonable, especially when high lighted with
extremely silly examples. When asked about the interiors of black holes,
I would say that it is more probable that Einstein is right, than that
inside every black hole there sits a chaos monkey causing chaos.
Regardless of where you are on the realism anti-realism scale, I would
think that most, if not all, would rule out the chaos monkey.
The most extreme I could imagine is the position of complete
agnosticism, but even extreme agnosticism must agree with the
theoretical equations, regardles of if he thinks we'll ever know for
sure or not.
> 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.
I would probably say postulate, or something similar. Prediction to me,
needs to be verified. Well, I'm not a native english speaker, so I
probably get the nuances wrong.
> Some, like eternal inflation, predict other big bangs, each forming it's own own "bubble universe".
>
... (examples) ...
>
> 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)
Or 3, remain agnostic or 4, letting the equations do the talking without
human interpretations. I would like to draw a line between what, within
a theory, we can test and prove/disprove, and beyond that line, we
statements of the theory we cannot currently (or never) test or prove. I
think the tools and concepts on each side of this line, should be
treated differently. I do not, however, think that we should stop
theorizing. I think the utility of these extrapolations is in
inspiration and motivation, that makes us push further. I agree that too
much or too strict agnosticism could lead to us stopping to expand the
horizons. So I agree with some, but I would still like to uphold a
difference of the content of theories between provable and
extrapolation, but both have their value and their use.
> 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?
I agree. Even the most outrageous theory can still serve as a mental
tool that manages to create new knowledge and new technology.
> 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.
Thank you. I just feel frustrated when the content outpaces my available
time. But I'll try to hang in there for a while yet. ;)
> I also don't think any special math or science background is required to understand most of the arguments used for different QM
> interpretations.
Ah, but this goes into the language idea I had, that when we humanize
the equations, this could lead to errors and wrong ideas. But as I said
in the other thread, what else can we do? At most, hope for some kind of
Arrival language, that changes the structure of the brain to enable us
to look beyond. ;)
> 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.
Thank Jason, I'll keep that in mind.
> 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.
Good point!
> > 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:
That's a shame! I assume it would make it harder to find different
angles and explanations.
> 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.
That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A whole
life!!
> 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.
But it is just an assumption? And can the assumption ever be proven? It
sounds as it by definition, touches things completely outside our
reality, and then it seems to me that they will be forever assumptions.
After all, many people "assume" a god or a creator (however you want to
define it) but no matter the assumption, it is not the same as hard
empirical proof.
> > 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).
Is that the only way to derive the equation? Or are there others?
> > 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?
Because it depends on if those untested claims can be tested or not.
Yes, we can have varying degrees of belief in them, but we can not claim
that we have direct knowledge, and for me, that is an important
difference that keeps us from letting out speculations lose touch with
reality. Keeping in mind the distinction between knowledge and degree of
belief I think is good to keep us grounded. That being said however,
theories are important mental tools for the reasons I outlined above.
> 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.
I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM equations,
and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory. It is also listed
under interpretations, and to me, it seems like an interpretation among
many that theorize and try to explain how the qm equations work.
> 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
Well, here I agree based on how I understand CI vs MWI. If I understand
you correctly CI needs some adjustment of the equation right, which MWI
does not need? Please correct me here. So CI according to what I said
(or read) above, would perhaps move closer to becoming an additional
theory since it modifies or adjusts the equation? I'm on deep water
here, so take it with a grain of salt.
> 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
Give them time! ;)
> 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.
Refuses to make such specifications... yet. ;) Another justification for
my agnosticism is that we've not reached the finish line and many things
and geniuses could come and go. Sadly, as you said in the example of
heliocentrism, it can take 100s of years. =(
> 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?
Since we live "in time" I find that proposition easier to swallow, than
universes completely beyond this one. So my degree of belief is higher
in points in time, partly supported by my human experience.
> 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?
But, based on Bills input, I don't see it as conclusive evidence of MWI.
I see it as a frontier that is not yet understood. Among the many ways it
could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it
could work.
> > 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.
Most likely true. It takes time. At the end of the day, we're only human
(at the moment).
> > 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.
Here is one example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments
"An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the potential
validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil droplets.
In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a vibrating
fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves produced
by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical behavior with
remarkable accuracy".
> 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.
Yes, I think that is a good start. But the time restriction still
stands, so we have to choose our topics carefully. ;)
It reminds me of the book the improvement of the mind by Isac Watts and
to some extent How to think by Henry Hazlitt.
I find it so wonderful how they thought that man should pick an area of
science and study it for its own pleasure and thereby improve his mind.
Then engage in thoughtful debate and conversation to make sure the best
ideas survive.
I then look at public discourse today and I think that both men would
rotate in their graves. ;)
> > 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.
Thank you Jason, I've added it to my book list.
> 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.
Ahh, got it! Well, to start with I'd change the grouping to (reason),
(math, logic), (philosophy), (language games).
Reason underlying all activities. Math and logic being important tools
in science and philosophy.
Language games (depending on how you define language) can then be played
outside of any of the activities such as in theological debate, within
the limits of a social game, but also within the setting of science,
religion and within philosophy.
> 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.
No, I think it was the theology that triggered me here, since I don't
play that game according to the rules of theologists, which makes those
discussions fairly meaningless to me, unless we beforehand go through
"the rules".
> > 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.
Sorry my bad! Again theology is what spooked me, and I was referring to
the bearded man in the sky.
> 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.
Yes, of course. If we start to hack away at god and modify the concept,
I am certain you can make me a believer depending on the definition. =)
> Sikhs, among other religions, define God as truth. If you believe in Truth, then you believe in the god of the Sikhs.
... (good examples)...
> And so on...
>
> So the statement that one doesn't believe in God is rather empty, absent further specification.
Agreed!
> 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.
Well, here I am not in agreement with you. I did read your blog entry on
the meaning of life for instance, and I do like the way you structured
it, but I do not buy your conclusion. But that might perhaps be another
mega-thread? =)
> 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.
Again, I think here I do not agree. Science can of course investigate
the phenomenon of religion from a social and psychological point of
view, but it can never explain it. Traditional religion as exprienced
phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science.
> > 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.
Depends on your definition of god. So let's start with the easy option
and say that I believe there is not, and can not be, any rational
evidence of the bearded man in the sky.
But I skipped ahead, and let's play with the definitions, and then of
course, when we move away from the classical one, it gets more
interesting.
> 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).
If only you knew how many hours in my youth I spent arguing that
hard-nosed atheism (with that I mean there can 100% never ever be a god
under any circumstances) is also a position of 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).
This I like!
> God or gods (defined as beings of vastly greater capacity than us) fall out naturally in many theories:
But here already I'm a believer! My computer and current AI:s have
vastly greater capacity than me in some domains, so according to that
defintion, sir, yes sir!
> - Spatially infinite universes
> - Mathematical Platonism
> - Quantum Multiverse theories
> - String theory landscapes
> - Simulation Hypothesis
Not a fan of the above.
> - Technological Singularity
Here there is much common ground and basis for discussion about
definition of god.
> 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
No, no, god as superior being, no quarrel there. I would not define it
as god myself, but if that is the definition we're using, then yes, it
follows from singularity that there will be gods. I'm very confident in
that belief.
> 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.
Guilty! But I also admitted that given your definition and the
singularity scenario, you are right so don't judge me too harshly! ;)
> > 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.
The ethereal ones I'm not a fan of, but I definitely agree with you in
the singularity theory, even though _personally_, that does not match my
definition of god, which is the more classical version (if you press me,
I think my favourite classical version is probably something unitarian or
quakerist).
> 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.
If you're interested I can send you a few short books. But be warned!
Much of it is incomprehensible to me, but he does make some good points.
> 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.
Probably no one does. I guess there is a reason for the term
incontinental philosophy. ;)
> 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.
I guess some suspend their judgement awaiting further evidence, and I am
absolutely certain that there are many who are trying but we are not
aware of them. Last night I heard of something called the zero-worlds
theory! I have no idea if it makes sense, but it obviously was inspired
by the MWI.
> 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.
Fascinating! By I assume it never managed to make a big dent? Is it dead
or dying?
> 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.
True! And my proof is that I had a ph.d. in physics for dinner a few
weeks ago who worked at CERN and now is working at a photonics startup.
And to my great disappointment her answer to the qm + mwi question was
"I don't really care". ;)
> 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.
Or suspended judgment? ;) No, point taken.
> 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
Yes, that was not nice of me. It was based on the text, but always
better to meet in person (or at least listen and watch).
> 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
Thank you very much! You do realize this will take time away from my
current watching of Halo? And I do have to say I see similarities
between Halo and The Expanse.
> > 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.
That's a long time to wait! I think I'll start with your youtube
documentaries, and then take it from there. =)
> 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
Does makes one think about scientific indoctrination, and the paradigm
shifts in philosophy of science! Momentum is building, and unexplainable
phenomenons are increasing until the paradigm is smashed. Not a smooth,
nor quick process.
> > 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.
Hmm, maybe I should try to write him an email in swedish and ask him to
join the mega-thread? I would not be surprised if he would. He seems
like that kind of guy!
He also has a brother who is a journalist in sweden and has an
alternative media blog exploring conspiracy theories, so if that
openness is genetic or inherent to the Tegmark upbringing, I can
definitely see how Tegmark was drawn to MWI out of a need to explain.
> > 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!
You're welcome!
> > 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.
Do you think occams razor here can be a crutch, and that it risks
limiting us? Many people say "occam" and close the case. But continued
digging, as you say, will perhaps revel that the added complications did
have a purpose in the end.
> 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. ☺️
Well, that's the beauty and fun of it all. It never ends! ;) QM is king
today and dethroned tomorrow. At the moment, if I understand things
correctly, there are no strong contenders really?
Oh, that reminds me. That was one of the arguments in the realism vs
anti-realism debate and whether the intangibles and unobservables have
existence or not, that historically there were many unobservables that
did exist, only to later be found to not exist. So having based
decisions on unobservables historically, they would have been wrong.
Well, just remembered, and we covered that to a certain extent above
when I wrote about the value of theories.
> > > 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.
True. The material world exists are far as we can perceive. It also has
been a very successful strategy historically, to act as if a material
world exists with real consequences, but at the end of the day, there is
always the extreme doubt. I think it is better to say that we do not yet
know the ultimate foundations, and to admit that everything, including
ones own experience and mind, can be doubted, than to postulate an ideal
world, or worlds beyond our comprehension.
I think I'm fairly happy to postulate a material world based on simply
pragmatic grounds.
> > 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).
But the advantage there was the testability of his hypothesis. No, it
would not be tested for many hundreds of years, but at the end of the
day it was something that predicted something about our physical
universe. Just like the punch in the face, vs, the lack of reaction when
a virtual being tries to virtually punch me in the face.
> > 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.
Yes, but this is not a state of the world or a scientific theory, so I'd
argue that this does not apply to our discussion of whether MWI can ever
be proven or not. Add to that, that we also don't know the answer, so as
far as we are concerned it is undefined.
> 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'd say H and I. Remove all counsciousness and the concept no longer has
any existence.
> > 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.
Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has meaning
when being interpreted by human consciousness. Since math tries to
describe aspects of nature in human form, it will follow that every time
we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool, the
constants will hold.
> 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... ?
In terms of human language and meaning yes. Those are only ideas in the
mind. Of course you can write down the ideas and how to use the
language. But the concepts are only meaningful to you, when thought
about.
In terms of aspects in the world, that math tries to describe, no, those
aspects still hold, assuming an external world of some kind.
> 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. ��
Oh yes! What should we call it? ;) Maybe it's time to sit down together
for a month or two and harvest the thread into a book? ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> 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
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list