[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