[ExI] teachers

[Jason Resch]

(Resending since we exceeded the 160 KB limit, I deleted a bunch of context
from prior conversations with the hope this goes through.)

Jason

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 12:45 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 4:55 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Then I don't think our positions are too far off. I don't ask for any
> belief or acceptance of some idea as some final truth. Rather, I see all
> ideas as having some probability/confidence we might ascribe to them. And
> even in such cases when an idea happens to be true we can never know it is
> true.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> To postulate is more associated with making an assumption.
>
> I think a nice way to think about theories (especially if one comes from a
> computing background) is to think of them as functions.
> A prediction then, is equivalent to evaluating a function for some
> situation x: y = F(x).
> Then "y", the output of the function, is what we might call that
> function's "prediction".
> The only thing we have assumed (or postulated) here is the validity of F()
> for the situation x.
>
> Now imagine a situation where mathematicians only used Wolfram Alpha to
> plot functions, and for some reason, Wolfram Alpha could never plot graphs
> outside of the range [-10, 10]. Mathematicians could theorize about the
> validity of functions outside this range, and what those plots might look
> like, but they could never use Wolfram Alpha (their only window for seeing
> these functions) to actually see what they look like there. This is how I
> feel about using theories in physics which predict things beyond our
> present confines of this point in time, and this point in space, in this
> branch of the wave function, in this big bang bubble, in this set of string
> theory configuration, etc. That our window is limited, has no direct
> bearing on whether or not these functions (or theories) are valid in ranges
> outside the window we can see.
>
> I think our position is a bit like a fish trapped in a pond. We should be
> careful not to mistake what we can see, for all that can be.
>
> Consider the plight of a brilliant fish scientist confined to a small
> pond. This fish scientist observes rocks fall, and bubbles rise, he also
> makes precise measurements of the surface of the water on the pond and
> finds it to be curved ever so slightly, as if it is a partial surface of a
> sphere. The brilliant fish scientist then develops a theory of gravity,
> based on the idea that everything is pulled towards some unseen center. The
> fish scientist drops two rocks on opposite sides of the pond, and finds
> their paths are not completely parallel, a further confirmation of this
> theory that everything is pulled towards a center. Furthermore, the
> difference in angle aligns with the curvature of the pond's surface, adding
> further credence to his theory (the direction rocks fall is always 90
> degrees from the angle of the pond's surface at the point the rock is
> dropped from).
> The brilliant fish scientist then makes a bold prediction: he infers that
> reality must be much larger than the small pond he is confined to: the
> curvature of the pond's surface suggests he lives on a sphere with a
> diameter of 40,000 kilometers. The fellow fish, however, think he is a bit
> silly for making such a prediction. Though the fellow fish accept his
> theory of gravity and the measurements of the pond surface's curvature,
> they think it is unwarranted to discuss anything that neither he nor they
> could ever confirm. The fish scientist argues, if his theory is true, it
> explains everything: why rocks dropped from different points don't fall in
> a parallel direction, why the pond's surface is not completely flat, but
> curved, and why rocks fall and bubbles rise. Yes, it implies the existence
> of things we can't directly see, but such unseen things are necessary for
> his theory to work at all (things would fall over, or collapse inward
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj6Kc1mvsdo>, if there wasn't already
> something underneath us and to the side of us).
>
> I think this is where we are. Our best theories necessarily include things
> beyond our capacity to see, because they are so powerful. Note that general
> relativity makes an analogous prediction regarding the curvature of space
> itself. We have used satellites to measure the curvature of space, and
> found its curvature to be less than 0.4%. This implies (assuming general
> relativity) that space must go on at least 250X further than what we can
> see in every direction. So that the volume of the space we can see is no
> more than 1 / 250^3 (or  1/17,576,000th) of what is out there. What do you
> say about the reality of all this other space? It is implied by our theory
> (and by our measurement of the curvature of space). But we will never be
> able to travel out beyond our present confines to see this other space. It
> is over the cosmological horizon
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon>. We are, like those
> fish, trapped in our own local backwater. Even if a fish jumps out of the
> pond to try to see a little further, it still can't see beyond the horizon.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>
>
> Can a true agnostic (who neither accepts or rejects any theory) even do
> physics? If you give a theory-agnostic physicist a physics problem to
> solve, how does he or she decide which theory to use to make a prediction?
> If the  theory-agnostic physicist chooses a particular theory to use to
> make a prediction, is that not a form of acceptance of the theory? It seems
> to me the true agnostic must refuse to take any action or make any
> prediction.
>
>
>> or 4, letting the equations do the talking without
>> human interpretations.
>
>
> I don't think that's realistic. You can confine yourself entirely to the
> equations, but you still get numerical answers that tell you reality is
> bigger than what we see.
> For example regarding the mathematics of cosmic inflation. You could ask
> at what time period t, does the math predict that inflation stops?
> The equations would provide you a strictly mathematical answer: never
> You could also ask for a numerical prediction for the number of big bangs
> that inflation will produce once inflation is initiated. And again you get
> a numerical answer: infinite.
>
> It's not that scientists woke up one day and wanted to find many
> universes, it's that so many of our best theories directly imply them, from
> a simple reading of the math. A simple reading of relativity (plus a
> measurement of the curvature of space) implies space is at least tens of
> millions of times greater than all of the trillions upon trillions of cubic
> light years we can see. Our best theory for explaining the big bang
> suggests the process that generated it continues forever, perpetually
> causing new big bangs for all time. The math of QM necessitates the
> introduction of parallel histories, which interact with ours to cause
> interference effects which we see in everyday experiments. These extra
> histories are there, in the equations (you can't apply the equations
> without including them).
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> There are three categories of predictions:
> https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg
> 1. Tested
> 2. Testable but not yet tested
> 3. Not testable
> #1 of course deserves our greatest credence, but I see no reason to
> distinguish credence between #2 and #3.
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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. ;)
>>
>
> Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban ?
>
>
>>
>> >       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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>> That's a shame! I assume it would make it harder to find different
>> angles and explanations.
>>
>
> I think there are so many different subfields and specialties that
> everything is quite fragmented and compartmentalized, such that even if one
> did discover a great unifying theory today, there's a good chance it would
> be completely glossed over because no one else has the right combination of
> specialties to understand it, assuming that they even heard about it and
> read it. Consider that there are over 10,000 scientific publications every
> day. How many can any person read in a day?
>
>
>>
>>
>> That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A whole
>> life!!
>>
>
> Yes, he continued working well into his 80s. There's a great book which
> covers much of Wheeler's life, called Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn.
>
> "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling,
> that when—in a decade, a century, or a millennium—we grasp it, we will all
> say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been
> so stupid for so long?"
> -- John Archibald Wheeler in “How Come the Quantum?
> <https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12434.x>”
> (1986)
>
> "I have never been able to let go of questions like: How come existence?
> How come the quantum?"
> -- John Archibald Wheeler in “Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam
> <https://archive.org/details/geonsblackholesq00whee/page/286/mode/2up?q=how+come+quantum>”
> (1998)
>
> Note Wheeler was 87 in 1998.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is
>> quantum mechanical.
>>
>> But it is just an assumption?
>
>
> All theories are assumed.
>
>
>> And can the assumption ever be proven?
>
>
> Theories are never proven, at best they persist in states of being "not
> yet refuted". But our confidence in theories increases as they survive more
> and more tests which have the capacity to refute them.
>
>
>> It
>> sounds as it by definition, touches things completely outside our
>> reality, and then it seems to me that they will be forever assumptions.
>>
>
> Such theories touch on things outside our reality, but they also touch on
> things inside our reality. For instance, they make predictions about things
> we can observe and test (e.g. predictions about the nature of reality or
> properties of physical laws). It is for this reason that they are
> falsifiable (there are tests they can undergo which have the capacity to
> refute them), and having passed such tests, we can have a non-zero
> confidence in them.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Empirical evidence concerns what is observable. I would agree, that if for
> example, there was a theory that made no observable predictions whatsoever,
> it would not be a scientific theory and would not be worthy of our time to
> discuss. But this is not the case concerning any of these theories (QM, GR,
> Inflation, etc.) They all make predictions we can, and have, tested
> empirically.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Is that the only way to derive the equation? Or are there others?
>>
>
> I am not aware of others. It also seems that Wheeler was never aware of
> any, at least at the time he was still asking: How come the Quantum? And
> Wheeler was probably the best connected physicist or recent memory.
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Can you explain this part more fully, I don't understand. In both cases,
> we exist in a time when it hasn't yet been tested. What then makes us more
> confident in the prediction? I don't see why the fact that we could test it
> is of any relevance in the time before we test it.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> >
>>
>> I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM equations,
>> and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory.
>
>
> In that sense it could be called an interpretation (as it adds nothing new
> to the theory that isn't already there).
>
> In the sense that I say it is not an interpretation, I do so in a
> different sense, because it is just an acceptance that the underlying
> equations are true. To me, calling it an interpretation is then a bit
> misleading, as we wouldn't call belief that "F = ma" an interpretation of
> momentum.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
> The existence of many histories is predicted by the equations (it's not
> the starting assumption). The parallel histories exist all the same in CI.
> CI just adds the assumption that all but one suddenly disappear when an
> observer looks at the system. Of course, this means that before any
> observers were born in this universe, both CI and MW agree on the existence
> of many parallel histories.
>
>
>
>> >
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You're correct. CI needs to describe measurement. That is, what qualifies
> as a measurement, and why does it lead to a deviation from Schrodinger's
> equation (as happens under it's hypothesized "collapse of the wave
> function").  If fleshed out, this would be a different theory from QM
> without collapse. But as it is, even proponents of CI disagree about when
> collapse happens. It used to be thought any measurement would do it, but
> the  the quantum eraser experiment shows can't be our measurement that does
> it, so perhaps our knowledge (or our consciousness) of the result triggers
> it. In saying our consciousness causes collapse, it has tied our progress
> in the measurement problem to the question of what consciousness is. And
> this is why the only known experimental test to disprove collapse as
> objectively real requires a conscious observer whom we are able to quantum
> erase their memory.
>
>
>
>>
>> > perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would be.
>> If advocates of CI did propose alternate mathematical
>>
>> Give them time! ;)
>>
>
> They've had 100 years. ��
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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 the thing is, ever since Everett we have had a solution to the
> measurement problem. He showed why we would have the appearance of wave
> function collapse even if the wave function never collapsed. Ever since
> they time, I think it's become a mind of fools errand to try to explain it
> as a real phenomenon (when we can show how without assuming it, we can
> explain it's appearance).
> The situation is a bit like trying to find some new unseen force that kept
> the moon in the sky, well after Newton's theory of gravity and inertia
> provided us a perfect explanation for what keeps it there.
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> I think there the right framing, in terms of different degrees of
> confidence.
>
> For instance, I might be 99% confident in the existence of past and future
> points in time, but 95% confident in the many histories of QM.
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>
> It is completely understood from the equations of QM (which imply the
> reality of many parallel histories of the quantum computer realizes).
>
> You only get the handwaving "we don't know" from the interpretations that
> deny the reality of these parallel states. But in denying the reality of
> the intermediate parallel states it becomes impossible to explain the
> correct answer existing in final state.
>
> To seal the deal, ask what happens when we run a brain simulation on a
> quantum computer, initialized so it perceives many different inputs. Does
> this not realize many parallel conscious states?
>
>
> Among the many ways it
>> could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it
>> could work.
>>
>
> Look at the explanations the AI gave under different assumed
> interpretations. Did you find the explanation assuming CI satisfactory?
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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 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
>
>
> I don't think anything there is specific to Bohm's interpretation. I see
> Bohm's interpretation as entirely philosophical. It admits the existence of
> all the parallel histories, it just says that only one of them is "really
> real" and that the unfortunate souls in the branches that aren't really
> real are not really conscious.
>
>
>
>>
>> "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".
>>
>
> The question to ask is whether Bohm's theory predicts anything different
> we could observe about the electron compared to conventional QM. I would be
> greatly surprised to learn that it does.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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. ;)
>>
>
> True.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>
> ��
>
>
>> 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".
>>
>
> A rational theologian, could use logic and reason in their analysis
> though, could they not?
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> I assumed so. ��
>
>
>> > 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. =)
>>
>
> Then we are doing theology, hopefully not the kind that scares you. ��
>
>
>
>> > 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!
>>
>
> ��
>
>
>>
>> > 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? =)
>>
>
> I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of
> departure between our views with regards to this subject.
>
>
>
>> > 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.
>
>
> What makes you so certain?
>
>
> Traditional religion as exprienced
>> phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science.
>>
>
> Religion rooted in personal experience is often distinguished with the
> term "mysticism." Science, concerned with the objective then, would have
> great difficulty handling mysticism, which is based on subjective
> experience.
>
> This is one of the main difficulties science has with studying
> consciousness (which is entirely subjective). But I feel you would not say
> that consciousness is entirely outside the scope of science, on account of
> consciousness being a subjective phenomenon.
>
>
>
>>
>> >       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.
>>
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Indeed. ☺️
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> "Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater
> knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and
> greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic
> tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without
> limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty,
> infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the
> accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as
> it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So
> evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never
> quite reaching this ideal."
> -- Ray Kurzweil in “The Singularity is Near” (2005)
>
>>
>> > 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 don't! Unlike many others, you were open to considering other
> definitions and changing your beliefs according based on the different
> definitions. The atheists on the other hand, tend to never accept other
> definitions besides the one god they chose to not believe in.
>
>
>>
>> > 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 am curious but also pressed for time, so I don't know when I would have
> time to read them. I will take a look though.
>
>
>
>>
>> >       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. ;)
>>
>
>
> That's a good one! ��
>
>
>> >       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.
>>
>
> It is explained well in this talk:
> https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=PFH_UFGrvKYGQnDk
>
> I am quite partial to the "zero universe interpretation", it highlights
> the fact that what we call universes are emergent and not quite real in the
> sense our intuition suggests. It is quite similar to the "many-minds
> interpretation". All the these theories accept a plethora of stuff, where
> they differ is in what they consider as the truly fundamental unit of this
> reality. Many-worlds would say it's the material, whereas zero
> universe/many-minds would say it's the observer-state (i.e. consciousness).
>
> I think this view, that consciousness is more fundamental is closer to the
> truth. It is not that "worlds split" but rather that "consciousness
> differentiates."
>
>
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>
> He's one of the only proponents of it. I don't think it has a large
> following. I think we're a ways off from experiments that could refute it.
>
>
>> > 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". ;)
>>
>
> One would think people get into physics to better understand reality, but
> then, I don't know how to explain such a lack of curiosity.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>
> ��
>
> Is Halo airing again or is there just one season?
>
> The first few seasons of The Expanse were quite great.
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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. =)
>>
>
> Thank you!
>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
>
> True. Large scale quantum computers breaking keys might be the impetus for
> such a paradigm shift.
>
>
>> >       > 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!
>>
>
> Worth a shot!
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Interesting I didn't know that.
>
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Yes I think it is a guide, but it too can be overly relied upon, to our
> detriment.
>
>
>> > 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?
>>
>
> There is work to unify QM and gravity (quantum gravity theories), the most
> prominent being string theory and loop quantum gravity. However it should
> be stated that both of these are fundamentally quantum theories. They don't
> escape any of the strangeness of QM, rather they just offer a hope that we
> can understand both QM and GR as elements of the same more-fundamental
> theory. My intuition is that GR is more likely to be changed and modified
> than QM, given that in the one resolved example where they gave different
> predictions, (the black hole information paradox), QM won out and GR was
> wrong.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Good point. We might also observe that 99.9% of scientific theories have
> been proven wrong, so on this empirical basis then, we should never have
> any high confidence in our theories. ��
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>
> Yes it is always good to keep that in mind. As Linde reminds us:
>
> "We find that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most
> conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality
> beyond our perceptions. This model of a material world obeying laws of
> physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point and
> say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are nothing but a
> useful tool for the description of matter. This assumption is almost as
> natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only
> a mathematical tool for the description of matter. We are substituting
> reality of our feelings by the successfully working theory of an
> independently existing material world. And the theory is so successful that
> we almost never think about its possible limitations."
> -- Andrei Linde in “Inflation, Quantum Cosmology, and the Anthropic
> Principle” (2002)
>
>
> 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 am nearly as confident that "2+2=4" is true as I am confident that I am
> thinking right now. Moreover, I can show constructively how if we assume
> mathematical truth exist independently of us, we can explain many facets of
> our perception, and why we come to believe in such things as material
> worlds rules by physical laws.
>
>
>> I think I'm fairly happy to postulate a material world based on simply
>> pragmatic grounds.
>>
>
> "The principal argument [against materialism] is that thought processes
> and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the
> external world is the content of our consciousness and that the
> consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the
> external world could be denied–though it is not very practical to do so."
> — Eugene Wigner in “Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem” (1961)
>
> Great minds think alike. ��
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>
> They do predict things about our physical universe though. The fact that
> shadows are not perfectly crisp, but always blurry, is an effect other
> parallel worlds have on our universe. We can see that shadows are blurry.
> It may be less subtle than a punch in the face, but it's there and we can
> see it with our own eyes.
>
>
>>  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.
>>
>
> Right it is not relevant to the question of MW. I asked for some
> clarification regarding your philosophy of mathematics, which you include
> more details on below.
>
>
>
>> >       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.
>>
>
> The concept would not exist, but would it's truth exist?
>
> We define science and reality by what can be objectively studied, what can
> two different subjects agree on.
>
> Two observers can study the same star or chemical element and discover the
> same facts about it, so we admit the star or chemical element as something
> that is part of reality.
>
> Likewise, two mathematicians, maybe in different times or places, perhaps
> even alien mathematicians in a different galaxy (or even universe) could
> discover the same properties of the same numbers. They would compute the
> same value for Pi, they would agree Pis is between 3 and 4.
>
> So when there is objective agreement between two subjects, why then do we
> admit the chemical element as part of reality but not these other objects
> which we can also objectively study?
>
>
>>
>> > 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.
>
>
> You could say the same thing about matter, could you not?
>
>
> Since math tries to
>> describe aspects of nature in human form,
>
>
> Is it uniquely human, or could aliens discover the same mathematical
> truths as we have discovered (despite them using different notation)?
>
> it will follow that every time
>> we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool,
>
>
> But as Godel showed, there is no final (or finite) set of rules that
> accounts for all mathematical truth. We must constantly strive to develop
> ever more powerful theories of mathematical objects, just as physicists
> must always strive to develop better more powerful theories in physics.
> This again, suggests to me, that mathematical truth is not a human
> invention but something infinite and beyond ourselves. It is something we
> study, much like we study the physical world.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>
> Would you say, similarly, that this universe did not exist before there
> were any conscious observers within it?
>
>
>
>> >       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? ;)
>>
>
> We've covered so much it is hard to say what the topic would be.  ☺️
> If there is any overriding theme, it is the tension between scientific
> realism and "empirical confirmationism" if that phrase makes sense.
>
> Jason
>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230921/345d4949/attachment-0001.htm>