[ExI] teachers

efc at swisscows.email efc at swisscows.email
Fri Sep 22 15:16:04 UTC 2023


Haha, good one! Just imagine where the lowly IT/Philosopher is on that 
list. ;)

As for the quote, I think it actually was quoted by me, but was written by 
another person in a cross-mailinglist answer. We would have to go through 
the paperwork to find out the correct person.

Best regards,
Daniel


On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:35 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>       Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this
>       life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven.  Jason
> 
> 
> Just a note of clarification: the text you quoted was written by "efc / Daniel", not me.
> 
> 
> 
> First, if by 'confirm' you mean true, then you have left statistics and gone into metaphysics.  Second - 'prove' means 'to
> test', so both 'prove true' and 'prove false' are possibilities
> Third - if you have some theories that lead to accurate predictions given margins of error it doesn't matter if the reliability
> is not perfect (since it never will be).  Is it true? Who knows.  It works.
> 
> I remember one chemistry teacher telling me that he ran a student lab test reaction three times and got three different
> results, all of which were different from what the lab text said.   bill w
> 
> 
> Reminds me of this joke: https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck/mathphyseng.html
>
>       A mathematician, physicist, and engineer are taking a math test. One question asks "Are all odd numbers prime?"
>
>       The mathematician thinks, "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- nope, not all odd numbers are prime."
>
>       The physicist thinks, " 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is not prime -- that could be experimental error -- 11 is
>       prime, 13 is prime, yes, they're all prime."
>
>       The engineer thinks, " 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime, ..."
> 
> 
> Jason
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:56 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       Good evening Jason,
>
>       On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
>       >       >       That is quite a big "if" in my world.
>       >       >
>       >       > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we have for it. I have put together a
>       list of
>       >       confirming evidence
>       >       > here:
>       >       > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence
>       >
>       >       Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any
>       >       verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and
>       >       I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to
>       >       test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm
>       >       or deny them.
>       >
>       > The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a theory which we can verify with our
>       senses or observations
>       > (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus).
>       >
>       > Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but each successful prediction a theory
>       makes, increases our
>       > confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation would falsify the
>       theory.
>       >
>       > Agree so far?
>
>       Yes.
>
>       > Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a priori, by ensemble theories that use
>       algorithmic information
>       > theory:
>       >
>       > 1. The universe follows simple stable laws
>       > 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature
>       > 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in time
>       >
>       > None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe with no apparent beginning, or with laws
>       that aren't
>       > probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described.
>       >
>       > We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms these predictions. It's no different than
>       devising a theory of
>       > gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that inverse square law of
>       gravitational attraction.
>       >
>       > So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not empirical.
>
>       Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this
>       life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven.
>       It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that
>       by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way,
>       its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by
>       definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this
>       world.
>
>       There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that
>       difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather
>       uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see
>       how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will
>       change its mind, and so would I.
>
>       I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will
>       change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the
>       finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;)
>
>       >       I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are
>       >       theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit
>       >       experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof.
>       >
>       >       Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd
>       >       rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump
>       >       in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some
>       >       writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified.
>       >
>       > You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most accurate prediction in physics (so far
>       confirmed to 8 decimal
>       > places).
>
>       Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI,
>       superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories
>       that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are
>       still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them.
>
>       As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to
>       be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that
>       they are currently anything else but theories.
>
>       >       >       Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is right.
>       >       >
>       >       > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a trillion odds)
>       >       > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after you found yourself surviving 40
>       iterations?
>       >
>       >       No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an
>       >       extremely lucky guy. ;)
>       >
>       > Let's say there are two theories for what is happening:
>       >
>       > 1. You are very lucky
>       > 2. The game is rigged
>       >
>       > Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row.
>       >
>       > Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in your assessment?
>
>       Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does
>       increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick
>       apart the game.
>
>       >       >       Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death do not
>       >       >       have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no information
>       >       >       travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read (religious
>       >       >       relatives aside).
>       >       >
>       >       > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things occurring outside this world?
>       >
>       >       Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude
>       >       contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof
>       >       related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert
>       >       landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of
>       >       interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this
>       >       world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and
>       >       philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage,
>       >       but that does not mean I believe in them.
>       >
>       > It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If in the future you are given a choice to
>       receive a neural
>       > prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind because you are
>       agnostic on a theory of
>       > consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information?
>
>       Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me
>       remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and
>       the outcome related to acting or not acting.
>
>       When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable
>       being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength
>       in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to
>       criticize myself.
>
>       >       >       Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this is the
>       >       >       nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most likely
>       >       >       forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize it 100%.
>       >       >
>       >       > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer running some program for which we
>       don't know whether
>       >       or not it
>       >       > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical problem how much power this computer
>       will ultimately
>       >       draw. But this
>       >       > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and there will always remain problems
>       for which
>       >       currently known
>       >       > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs.
>       >
>       >       I agree.
>       >
>       >       > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our best to expand physics and
>       ontology, to expand
>       >       the scope of
>       >       > questions that are answerable.
>       >
>       >       I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons,
>       >       developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at
>       >       the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to
>       >       theories which cannot be proven.
>       >
>       > Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the theory of gravity or evolution.
>
>       I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way,
>       way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to
>       committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on
>       results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom.
>
>       >       They are an important tool, they can
>       >       serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and
>       >       will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained.
>       >
>       > I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be obtained. We could be in a dream world or
>       simulation where
>       > nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some theories are far more
>       likely to be correct than
>       > others.
>
>       What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing
>       proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)?
>
>       I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it.
>
>       As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others
>       (pink unicorns).
>
>       >       >       Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in our
>       >       >       world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are
>       >       >       concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can do to
>       >       >       escape their medium of existence by themselves.
>       >       >
>       >       > You are defining their existence in terms of their material construction. If we, however, relax this
>       constraint, and
>       >       say any
>       >       > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and the material substrate is
>       unimportant) then
>       >       external simulation
>       >
>       >       I do, since we live in a material universe.
>       >
>       > How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God?
>
>       Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far,
>       then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic
>       reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I
>       exist, and that we do live in a material universe.
>
>       But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything,
>       including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we
>       end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so
>       I think I'll refrain from going there. ;)
>
>       >       Therefore I do not think it
>       >       makes sense to relax this constraint.
>       >
>       > Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, (which is perhaps the least-settled
>       subject in science today.)
>       > Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position.
>
>       I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other
>       discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some
>       sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position
>       that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around
>       mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =)
>
>       >       Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that
>       >       in our other thread about ID and consciousness.
>       >
>       > The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my opinion.
>
>       Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory.
>
>       >       > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are
>       the causes
>       >       entirely
>       >       > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or can happen in this universe?
>       >
>       >       I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns
>       >       and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical
>       >       concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas.
>       >
>       > I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism.
>       >
>       > I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It transcends us, and any attempt to define it.
>       >
>       > This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the source of mathematical truth. No matter
>       what mathematical
>       > system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, where does truth
>       come from, if not us or
>       > our axiomatic systems?
>
>       When something corresponds with a state in the world? I'm no expert, but
>       I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we
>       interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the
>       concept is meaningless.
>
>       > Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes:
>       >
>       > "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems to disprove the view that mathematics
>       is only our own
>       > creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they can’t have any others
>       except those he has
>       > given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least something in
>       them) exist
>       > objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or
>       other of Platonism
>       > or ‘realism’ as to the mathematical objects."
>
>       Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the
>       creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not
>       convinced by his line of reasoning.
>
>       >       Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness.
>       >       It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that
>       >       individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I
>       >       do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;)
>       >
>       > It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything.
>
>       Very true. ;)
>
>       Best regards,
>       Daniel
> 
>
>       >
>       > Jason 
>       >
>       >
>       >       Best regards,
>       >       Daniel
>       >
>       >
>       >       >
>       >       > Jason 
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >       >       Best regards,
>       >       >       Daniel
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >       >       >
>       >       >       > Jason
>       >       >       >  
>       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       Best regards,
>       >       >       >       Daniel
>       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       > Jason
>       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >       On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >             On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat
>       >       <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>       >       >       wrote:
>       >       >       >       >       >                   Hello Stuart,
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                   Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of
>       cutting
>       >       >       >       >       >                   edge physics.
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                   You say that
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                         that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax
>       because you are
>       >       already
>       >       >       >       immortal. You
>       >       >       >       >       >             don't need to
>       >       >       >       >       >                         copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not
>       infinite
>       >       numbers of,
>       >       >       you
>       >       >       >       strewn about
>       >       >       >       >       >             the
>       >       >       >       >       >                         multiverse.
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                   What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses
>       supported by
>       >       proof or
>       >       >       is itone
>       >       >       >       of many
>       >       >       >       >       >             interpretations of
>       >       >       >       >       >                   current theories?
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >             Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that
>       the probability
>       >       there's
>       >       >       only
>       >       >       >       one
>       >       >       >       >       universe
>       >       >       >       >       >             (with one kind of
>       >       >       >       >       >             physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122.
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >             https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >             This is as close to proof as anything science can provide.
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >             Jason 
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >              
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                   Best regards, Daniel
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                         Stuart LaForge
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                               This is a crucial point, for those of us interested
>       in uploading,
>       >       so I
>       >       >       think we
>       >       >       >       should
>       >       >       >       >       >             really
>       >       >       >       >       >                               understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would
>       you please
>       >       explain
>       >       >       further?
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                               Could you also please explain the comment about
>       continuity and
>       >       >       not-discontinuity
>       >       >       >       not
>       >       >       >       >       being
>       >       >       >       >       >             the
>       >       >       >       >       >                               same thing?
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                               Ben
>       >       >       >       >       >                               _______________________________________________
>       >       >       >       >       >                               extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       >       >       >       >                               extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       >       >       >       >                              
>       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                         _______________________________________________
>       >       >       >       >       >                         extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       >       >       >       >                         extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       >       >       >       >                        
>       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >                   _______________________________________________
>       >       >       >       >       >                   extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       >       >       >       >                   extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       >       >       >       >                   http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >       >_______________________________________________
>       >       >       >       >       extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       >       >       >       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       >       >       >       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >
>       >       >       >       >_______________________________________________
>       >       >       >       extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       >       >       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       >       >       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >       >       >
>       >       >       >
>       >       >       >_______________________________________________
>       >       >       extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       >       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       >       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >       >
>       >       >
>       >       >_______________________________________________
>       >       extropy-chat mailing list
>       >       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       >       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>       >
>       >
>       >_______________________________________________
>       extropy-chat mailing list
>       extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>       http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list