[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Fri Sep 22 06:43:09 UTC 2023
Good evening Jason,
(resending as well, I hope this doesn't mess up the threading, but let's hope
for the best!)
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:
> Good evening Jason,
>
> Wife is sleeping, so now I can pursue my guilty pleasures such as
> continuing the mega-thread! ;)
>
> ��
Ergo... choose your wife with care! ;)
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Yes, it does seem like we're not that far apart. One difference is our
subjective probabilities, and the other is the realism/anti-realism
aspect, although, I don't have a fixed position and am somewhere between
the two anti-realism positions. Probably an interesting topic for
another thread to try and decide on a position there. =)
> 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.
>
> 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.
Well, if we decouple it from the real world, and treat it as a function
(pure mathematics) then yes, I think that's valid. If a part of the
function is verification, then sometimes the function in this reality
doesn't compute. Or do I misunderstand you?
> 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, 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. 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.
I do agree, with the difference that the prediction is about our
space, which we theoretically could explore, as physical beings moving
through space. So my probability of belief does assign some value to it
and that value is higher than for predictions generating ideas outside
of our universe.
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> 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.
I think that depends on what the agnostic believes the theory to be. If
it is a tool with the purpose of making predictions and navigating our
world, the agnostic can freely use any tools, since the tool is not the
world itself. It's just a thought construct that takes input and
generates output. If that output can be verfied, it is elevated to
something close to knowledge and stops being belief. Those theories do
yield extrapolations when they are interpreted in certain ways, that go
beyond our world, and the true agnostic ignores those extrapolations. HE
might engage in them in order to try and prove them, but if they are per
definition outside our world, I do not think he would waste his time and
let nobler creatures fight those battles.
What is interesting though is the decision to ignore the "extra" for the
time being, or assign it some probability. But then the question is, if
it is meaningful to play with probabilities when it comes to things
outside our world or if that only risks trapping you in the theory.
"Sometimes it's hard to agnostic", to paraphrase a famous line from a
country song. Hmm, or was it "Stay in your world"...? ;)
> 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.
Well, if it is not testable or verifiable, a restatement could be, if I
input this value in this equation I get this answer. But yes, I think it
is stretching it a bit. We are people and understand our world through
our senses, thoughts and language, so doing all the science and expect
us to not do anything with the result does seem a bit inhuman.
> 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).
Well, I think we've been done this route before.
> 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 think 3 is definitely below 2, since it loses any grounding in the
world, and is of no use. The trick is to distinguish between 2 and 3 and
that is not always so clear, so that is why I am not prepared to dismiss
any interpretation of QM. What sounds impossible today might be possible
tomorrow, however, interpretations that end up as 3 will always be less
credible to me than 2.
By putting too much emphasis on 3 on the other hand, can distract us and
make us waste our time from other work which clearly falls into 1 and 2.
But, that assumes we can make that judgment.
> > 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 ?
Ahh.. the language of spock? ;) .u'u (repentance) somehow I can see the
logicin that!
>
>
> > 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!
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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?
Sigh, how sad that would be. The truth having existed for decades or
centuries, and no one having the knowledge to understand it.
>
>
> > 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!!
>
> 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?” (1986)
Wouldn't surprise me at all!
>
> "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” (1998)
>
> Note Wheeler was 87 in 1998.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> All theories are assumed.
Very much true. But it is important not to lose sight of that fact I
think.
>
> 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.
And that could be another mega-thread about truth. Don't you think? =)
>
> 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.
Possibly, but definitely not the same level of confidence as what can be
proven. See above about the agnostics dilemma.
>
> 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.
Yes, but as you say, the empirical is a non-problem. When
interpretations try and "cross over", that's when the fun starts.
>
>
> > > 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 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.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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.
The difference is (and I think something got lost in the text, but I'm
not sure) that if theories make predictions about our world, they belong
to 1 and 2 above, and if they make predictions in category nr 3, they
are just idle speculation. Therefore confidence in theories that help us
navigate this world can be higher than extrapolations and
interpretations about possible worlds we can never reach.
>
>
> 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.
>
> In that sense it could be called an interpretation (as it adds nothing new to
> the theory that isn't already there).
Maybe this is an additional point of confusion and difference? The
status of theory vs interpretation?
> 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.
To give you another example "In fact, the only claim made by this
interpretation is that there is no collapse of the wavefunction. There
is just a universal wavefunction that evolves unitarily. The rest is for
future physicists and philosophers to try to understand".
(https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/653331/how-real-are-the-worlds-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation)
I tried to find the text where the author did not like the fact that it
is interpretation and not theory but couldn't find it. The quote above
kind of touches on the spirit of that text at least.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> > 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! ;)
>
> They've had 100 years. ��
Come on, what about 100 more? ;)
>
>
> > 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 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.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Makes sense. And in my case, since I like to stick to the pragmatically
material, at the moment my confidence in MWI and other similar
interpretations is very low, just as it is when it comes to the bearded
man in the sky.
Do I say 0%? Probably not, but how close to 0 is 0? ;) But at the same
time I am reluctant to add probabilities to states and things out of
this world, and I feel much better saying we don't know.
> > 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.
>
> 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?
We don't know. Let's run a brain simulation and see how it goes. What
you say is hand waving, I interpret as many view points, the agnostic
one being one of them like the quote above.
> 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?
Due to my lack of the underlying equations, I would not trust myself to
judge, except for the fact, that I do feel more inclinved to believe
theories which do not postulate multiple worlds.
> > > 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
>
> 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.
Well, that's one example that shows that the various interpretations
have their own ways of believing they can prove one or the other.
Correctly or incorrectly, they do exist.
> "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.
>
>
>
> > 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. ;)
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > > 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".
>
> A rational theologian, could use logic and reason in their analysis though,
> could they not?
Well, logic only shows us the relationship between terms, so it would be
very convincing. It would be a game where terms, he defines at will,
conforms to them.
> > > 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.
>
> 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. ��
Well, not what I would call theology. But again, we can play by your
definition of theology, and yes, we're doing theology. I think you
should come up with a new term. I think keeping "theology" will close a
lot of minds to what you have to say.
>
>
>
> > 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? =)
>
> I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of
> departure between our views with regards to this subject.
I don't know if we should start that one now, or let this one run its
course first?
>
>
>
> > 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?
Because it is by its nature a subjective and deeply personal experience.
You run into the qualia problem of redness. You can describe of course,
how it affects someones life, they can verbally or visually tell you
about it, but you can never yourself know the meaning of it for the
other person. So the external, objective side, science can deal with
perfectly well, but the subjective, meaningful side, science cannot deal
with.
> 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.
Yes, exactly my point. I think here, as with god and theology, we were
just not careful about definitions, so I think we're very close in our
opinions here. But let's see.
>
> 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.
No, consciousness objectified, yes. Subjectified no.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> 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.
I think that is due to fear of losing control and predictability of the
world perhaps. And the other kind I've read about are people who were
abused within the framework of a religion. But I digress.
>
>
> > > 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 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.
Will send you off list, and just put them on the virtual reading list.
;)
>
>
>
> > 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. ;)
>
> That's a good one! ��
Glad you liked it. Don't know if I rediscovered it or invented it but
I am pretty pleased with it. ;)
>
>
> > 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."
I had a feeling you would enjoy it! =)
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
> 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.
I asked about it, and the reason was too see the world. The fact that it
ended up being physics was that it was just an easy subject for the
person and led to easily achieving scholarships which led to being able
to travel and to see the world.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> ��
>
> Is Halo airing again or is there just one season?
No, just one season. Since I have never played the game I enjoy it. But
I suspect hard core fans will most likely not enjoy it.
> The first few seasons of The Expanse were quite great.
Oh yes! I mentally stopped with the gate, and the rest I try to forget.
>
>
>
> > > 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. =)
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> True. Large scale quantum computers breaking keys might be the impetus for
> such a paradigm shift.
Oh that will certainly have political repercussions and will change
society fundamentally. No more secrets? Could we live with it?
>
> > > 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!
Will do!
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> Yes I think it is a guide, but it too can be overly relied upon, to our
> detriment.
Having read my fair share of philosophical debates, that has always been
my intuition. I think it is a good tool, but also one tha can easily
lead us astray and be misused.
>
> > 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.
Strange! I haven't heard about string theory in a long while.
>
>
> 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. ��
Aha... spoken like a true agnostic! Did I just convert you? ;)
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> 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)
Good quote.
>
>
> 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. ��
;)
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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.
Well, if it is that simple, I am sure that the MWI will soon become
dominant. But something tells me that the fact that shadows are blurry
can probably be explainedin other ways, or perhaps, that we cannot
exactly explain it yet. But, a good example nevertheless!
>
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> 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.
Sorry! Misunderstood.
>
>
>
> > 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?
As long as there is a mind to evaluate the truth, yes. Without minds,
just matter.
> 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?
If you mean math, it is just have the properties of the physical world
is thought about by the beings. Without the beings, that languages and
its truth values, lose all meaning. Only matter is left.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> You could say the same thing about matter, could you not?
Yes, if everything is doubted, of course. But as Wigner said, matter is
the most practical way and assumption, that leads to massive benefits,
so I don't see any reason why I should doubt matter.
>
>
> 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)?
Sorry my mistake. Consciousness. I am certain if we meet aliens, they
will have math. And yes, since they are attempting to describe the same
world of matter, their math will correspond with our math, unless they
are better observers and develop the tool/language further.
>
> 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.
Well, based on my opinions above, I do not share that point of view. I
believe it is an invention only meaningful when interpreted by
consciousness.
>
>
> 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?
I would say that it did not meaningfully exist.
>
>
>
> > 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.
Yes, I agree. I think that is one fundamental tension. Also we touched
on identity and idealism vs materialism. Maybe a good title would be
"How not to do philosophy"? ;)
Best regards, Daniel
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list