[ExI] Fwd: A science-religious experience

[efc at disroot.org]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

>       True. But if we have a material world, with empirical feedback loops and the
>       method of science, that is not a problem. Over time people will tend to
>       converge. If we do not have feedback loops and empirical proof, then imagination
>       can run wild, leaving us with competing theories that are debated for 1000s of
>       years. ;)
> 
> I'm no fan of that either. But I am of the opinion that we're now in a
> position to settle questions that have plagued us for millenium.

Maybe. Time will tell, and I hope you are right. =)

> Consider for example, Darwin solved the ancient problem of whether the egg or
> chicken came first. Einstein's relativity gave an answer to Parmenides
> eternalism, and his Brownian motion proved Democritus's theory of atoms.
> Turing's invention of the computer (Disproved Descartes and his millenium old
> idea that an extraphysical soul was required for intelligent conversation). So
> there have been great strides in ancient philosophical problems. I think
> other, more recent discoveries of the past few decades can also answer
> fundamental problems in ontology and in philosophy of mind.
> 
> All this is to say I share your distates for eternal squabblings unrooted in
> what we can conclusively demonstrate or otherwise prove (rationally and/or
> empirically)

Agreed.

>       I think part of the success, is that we have a shared, material world. But
>       languages straddles it, and our subjective minds, and that is why it also can
>       lead us astray.
> 
> I very much agree with this (that a shared world is so big a part of our
> successful communication). I wonder too though, how much of having a shared
> world is also experiential. Dolphins and humans inhabit the same physical
> world, but perhaps a very different mental one. Perhaps their echolocation
> qualia are completely unlike our visual qualia. How much of an impediment
> might this be for communication?  

Interesting question! I would imagine that with the recent AI analysis of the
languages of animals, we might be able to make some progress here perhaps?

>       We must also be mindful of that 1. we might not know what is the simplest
>       solution.
> 
> We may not ever "know", but there are frameworks for comparing relative
> complexity of theories in completely objective ways. For example:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

True, but this might lead us astray if we do not know enough about the problem,
and second, it might not be possible to use this methodology today in a reliable
way. This is, however, beyond me.

>       And 2. there is no provable law that says that simplest is always
>       right.
> 
> Nothing in science is provable, but there are theories that propose why with
> overwhelming probability, observers should find themselves to exist in
> universes with simple laws. And moreover, these theories make other testable
> predictions (which so far are confirmed).

Depends on your truth criterion and definition of "proof".

> I know your time is limited and precious, but if you do have time, please read
> (just the abstract) of this article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826

This is beyond me. Could you please expand a bit on what empirical proofs have
been found for this? It seems the theory assumes some kind of
mathematical/idealist universe, which would be a weakness since we have no
empirical proof of this.

> Why do we believe a theory like relativity is true? Because it makes

Empirical, repeatable experiemnts.

> The problem, it seems to me, is not that the ultimate theory of everything is
> too complicated, it is that it is so simple it slipped under everyone's nodes.
> The theory of everything is (in my view) little beyond the theory of
> arithmetic.

That does give arithmetically challenged peple like me hope! =)

>       I reject the simulation hypothesis because it can never be proven (as per our
>       discussion) by empirical and verifiable proof or experiments. It is just
>       speculation, and since we can never know, I refrain from discuss it. Present
>       empirical proof, and I will revisit it.
> 
> By that reasoning you should reject all of science, because nothing can ever
> be proven, we can only gain evidence that increases or decreases our
> probability estimates for some idea being true or not. And that is all the
> simulation argument does, provide a framework for consistently updating one's
> probability assessment for the hypothesis that we're presently in a
> simulation.  

I disagree. The fact that simulation is outside this reality, means that by
definition it is forever beyond us and can never be empirically verified, it is
thus, meaningless.

I also think science has been doing very well with discovering and proving
things. Based on a pragmatic idea of truth, as well as its prediction making
abilities, I'm perfectly comfortable to say that the world is "proven" and that
simulations, deities etc. will never be proven, and are, from an existence point of
view, nonsense.

>       I do acknowledge the value as exercises in creativity, inspiration, poetry and
>       so on. I also acknowledge value from a pragmatic point of view, where people
>       need god in order to feel happy, or to lead a good and law abiding life. I might
>       find it a bit sad though, but I do see a pragmatic point.
> 
> The (pragmatic) point of having a mind/brain is to predict probable future
> experiences according to different courses of action. If we fail to
> incorporate the probability of waking up from a simulation as a possible
> future experience after death in this universe, you can say it is of no
> pragmatic difference to anyone left inside the simulation, but not that it is
> of no pragmatic difference to your future experiences.

I disagree. Since I have no evidence or indication that people have woken up,
and since the simulation is beyond anything we, by design, can never know, it is
irrelevant to me. In fact, believing that it is relevant, or that gods, unicorns
and other metaphysical realms or beings "could be" real might very well have
negative pragmatic value, so yet another reason why I think they should be
considered null and void.

However!

And this is the great thing... should god reach out and uplift me, I will revise
my position.

>       > The evidence is that the constants of our universe are so finely-tuned, the
>       > chances are 1 in 10^120 that it is just a coincidence or an accident.
>
>       Survivorship bias?
> 
> Survivorship bias is the notion of the anthropic principle
> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ) -- the tautology that
> life only finds itself in universes compatible with its existence. But the
> anthropic principle alone isn't enough to explain how such stark odds were
> overcome. For that you need a gigantic number of universes.   Who knows?
> 
> Basically every cosmologist who has attempted to answer this question comes to
> the conclusion that it can't be a coincidence. No one knows if it is right
> with certainty, but they're about as sure as it is possible to get as far as
> any scientific theory is concerned.

As far as I am concerned, only theory and no proof has been presented and most
likely will never be presented. Once it does... I'll revise my position.

>       What we know is that the constants have the values
>       they have. _Why_ they have these values, we do not know, we might never know,
>       and speculation is pointless from a pragmatic and scientific point of view and
>       risks leading us astray.
>
>       >       "The fine tunings, how fine-tuned are they? Most of them are 1% sort of things. In other words, if things are 1%
>       >       different, everything gets bad. And the physicist could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand, this
>       >       cosmological constant is tuned to one part in 10^120 — a hundred and twenty decimal places. Nobody thinks that’s
>       >       accidental. That is not a reasonable idea — that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident.
>       That’s the
>       >       most extreme example of fine-tuning."
>       > -- Leonard Susskind in “What We Still Don’t Know: Are We Real?” (2004)
>       >
>       > If you want a scientific answer for this fine-tuning that does not presume
>       > creationism, then the only other answer is a multiverse.
>
>       Or the acceptance that we do not know.
> 
> We do know it has to be one of these three. Consider that regardless of
> whether you know what proposition "A" stands for, you should conclude, on
> logic alone, that the sentence "A or not A" is true. For example, it is true
> that today over your house, it will either rain or not rain. I know this is
> true, despite knowing nothing about your local weather.

True... but this is an event in the physical world, that can be empirically
proven.

I can say, "A or not A" where A equals a pink, multi-dimensional unicorn, that
can never be perceived in any way or proven in any way.

Since this is by definition outside of our reality, and will forever be so, A or
not A in that case is nonsensical.

> Along the same vein, any time you have multiple propositions that are
> exhaustive (they cover all possibilities) and mutually exclusive (no two can
> both be true), then even without telling you what those propositions are,
> because they are exhaustive, you know at least one of them must be true, and
> further, because they are mutually exclusive, the probabilities all add to
> 100%, and you can add probabilities of independent propositions to get the
> combined probability.
> 
> In the case here, the propositions are:
> A: There is only one universe and it was not designed to support life (coincidence)
> B: There is only one universe and it was designed to support life (creationism)
> C: There is not one universe. (multiverse)
> 
> There is no room for any 4th possible option here, these 3 cover all
> possibilities and so we know, without having to do any experiment, that at
> least one of these is true.
> 
> Given the overwhelming observational evidence against proposition A, we can
> assign it a very low probability. Let's say we assign it less than 1%
> probability. This means that the probability of (B or C) is greater than 99%.

This goes back to reality. Let's back up a bit here and look at what we can
empirically verify and let's unpack the premisses a bit. What can we observe and
empirically verify? That one universe exists. I think this is a very
uncontroversial statement and true in every common meaning of the word true.

When it comes to if it was designed or not, we can never know, since that lies
outside the scope of our empirical world, likewise C. Therefore, I do not agree
to A, B and C, and therefore I cannot agree with your entire logical reasoning
here.

>       > We have 3:
>       > Coincidence
>       > Creationism
>       > Multiverse
>       >
>       > I have seen no scientific theory, proposal, or hypothesis to explain
>       > fine-tuning aside from these 3.
>
>       Ok.
> 
> We don't have to pursue this any further, but I think it is the strongest
> evidence we have for a multiverse.

I think you are right in that we probably have reached an impasse. Let's put it
to rest.

> If you have to doubt math to keep to your hypothesis, then I agree we can go
> no further on this topic.

I don't doubt math. It is a good tool we can use to make predictions. Math
without any prediction, or used in a way that changes nothing in the world, would
be quite useless.

>       Philosophy can yield personal, subjective truth, it can help clarify concepts,
>       highlight the reasons for our ideas or the implications of them. It is another
>       tool. But when it comes to our world, empirical proof is the only way.
> 
> I think we may have found another fundamental point of disagreement here
> (regarding the utility of rationality).
> 
> I think this passage (written by Arnold Zuboff) is relevant to explaining the
> role of empiricism and "a priori" (rational) reasoning, and why both are
> important and necessary:

I do not deny the value of reasoning, but I've explained earlier in the thread
my position on thought experiments, discussions and empirical proof.

>       > What do you conclude about the existence of these other parts of the
>       > universe? Are they not real?  
>
>       I can remain agnostic. We have proven, as you say, the the universe
>       extends farther than we can see. That is all. No need to speculate or
>       hypothesize, unless it serves as the foundation of more experiments.
> 
> If you can take this curvature measurement as evidence that the universe
> extends farther than what we can see,  why not take the equally
> empirical result (by the same team) regarding" fluctuations having a scale
> invariance slightly less than 1" as evidence that inflation is true?
> 
> You can say, I don't know enough to have an opinion on this, and truthfully, I
> don't either, but this was a prediction made by inflation, one later confirmed
> by observation. So assuming what I and these other scientists say is true on
> this, should you not (if you had the time to research, understand, and accept
> this evidence) reach a similar conclusion regarding the reality of the
> inflationary cosmos beyond what we can see?  

I don't think it needs me to commit to things that lie beyond what we can see.
There is an observable effect, and I'm quite content with observable effects.

>       It is important to realize the questions we can answer, and the questions we can
>       never answer. If not, we risk wasting a lot of time.
> 
> I agree. I don't waste time on questions I don't think we can answer. I think
> you and I just differ on what questions we believe can be answered.  

Yes, I think you are correct here. I have a much narrower "universe" than you
have, since I am not happy about inference, and rooted in observability, effects
in the world and predictions.

What we do have in common though, is updating our ideas in the light of new
evidence, even though our standard and strictness there differs.

>       >       I disgaree. See above. There are alternative QM theories as well.
>       >
>       > I wouldn't call the alternatives theories. They're only conjectures, and
>       > incomplete ones at that (they give no mathematically describable account of
>       > when, or how, or why collapse happens), nor can they explain quantum computers
>       > or Wigner's friend coherently.  
>
>       Let's see if they will be refined in the future. =) Withholding judgement is a
>       valid approach.
> 
> Max Tegmark on Everett vs. Copenhagen: "The former is a mathematical theory,
> the latter is not. The former says simply that the Schrödinger equation always
> applies. The latter says that it only applies sometimes, but doesn't given an
> equation specifying when it doesn't apply (when the so-called collapse is
> supposed to happen). If someone were to come up with such an equation, then
> the two theories would be mathematically different and you might hope to make
> an experiment to test which one is right.”
> 
> They've had about 100 years to formalize the collapse hypothesis into a
> mathematical theory. We're still waiting.

Maybe it takes longer and longer, the further science progresses?

>        You could be right, but my reason is more to get the
>       most "bang for the buck" of intellectual energy, and I think it is important to
>       focus on what we can know.
> 
> Do you want an answer to the question of whether there are multiple universes
> or not, or do you not care, or not want to know? If you don't care or don't
> want to know, I will stop pursuing this topic.  

This is actually a very interesting question. I don't see how I could ever get
that answer, without some way which would link the two universes together. If I
could get an answer to that question, that would mean that somehow information
would be able to flow between the two world, and that would "bring it" into my
physical world, and I would very much like an answer to this question.

My current opinion on it is that since it would not as far as I can see, make
any difference to my life, I think there are other questions that are more
interesting to pursue.

So it's at the moment hovering around "don't care" _but_ it depends on if a
"link" is discovered which brings in into this world so to speak.

So I guess a "flat out" don't care it not entirely correct.

>       > I think what you describe as eternal doubt, is rather an acceptance of
>       > nihilism, or solipsism. But if one really eternally doubts, they should have
>       > no reason to accept solipsism over any other hypothesis, they should doubt
>       > solipsism as much as the external reality hypothesis, as much as idealism,
>       > materialism, and evil demons. So the eternal doubter, is only the purest
>       > agnostic, who never accepts any theory as true.  
>
>       I'm afraid I have to disagree here. Another way to describe the
>       difference between the eternal doubter, the solipsist, and the agnostic is:
> 
> [snip] If I summarize our disagreement here, I see the solipsist as the odd
> man out, and eternal doubter/agnostic together. The way you see it is that
> solipsist/eternal doubter are together, and the agnostic is the odd man out.

Yes, I think that makes sense.

>       > But then I could say, if the fish might develop legs, humanity might
>       > develop hyperdrives and escape to other unseen parts of the universe
>       > beyond the horizon. By this reasoning, those parts of the universe are
>       > real and scientific.
>
>       As I say... if we do, if evidence is presented, I'll revise my position.
> 
> It seems you want to have it both ways though:

Isn't that the human condition? ;)

> You want the fish (before it develops legs and escapes the pond) to be a
> scientist when he talks of his theory-based conclusion of a larger world
> outside his pond which he has never seen. You want humans (before it develops
> hyper drive and escapes the observable universe) to be philosophers debating
> pointlessly when we talk about our theory-based conclusions for a larger
> reality beyond the observable universe which we have never seen.
> 
> So I am not asking for a revisioned position, but if you had to be consistent,
> would you say the fish in my example was doing philosophy, or would you say
> that the humans (before hyper drives) are doing science?  

Science developed out of philosophy, so I could see how that would apply to the
though experiment. The key is revising ones position in light of new evidence.

>       empirical proof there of. Let me also add the distinction that the fundamental
>       element of fire is a different category of question, than if a parallell
>       universe exists. We know how to look for elements, but there is no way for us
>       based on our current scince to identify multiple worlds.
> 
> Until electron microscopes let us see them, evidence of atoms came indirectly,
> by way of statistical arguments worked out by Einstein.

Now we can! So I think that is an excellent example of focusing on making
predictions and empirical proof, and eventually time and progress will bring
more and more of reality into our domain of knowledge and focus. Note that atoms
are "things" in our world, unlike god or parallel universes.

> It is like that with multiple universes, the evidence is indirect, or
> statistical.  

This is old ground.

>       Agree! =) I think last time we had a nice mega-thread going on, we also ended up
>       on different sides of one fundamental philosophical position. I find it
>       fascinating how mental worlds unfold from these different positions about these
>       fundamental questions!
> 
> Indeed! I wonder how much of someone's mentality could be worked out from
> their answers to just a few core questions. What might those questions be?

This is a very interesting question! I also wonder if this could be applied to
ones politics. If ones politics can be worked out from some small amount of
traits or core values?

>       > This becomes
>       > clearer when you view our universe according to the "block time" eternalist
>       > view, seeing it as one coherent, unchanging structure. It is a mathematical
>       > object, not unlike the unit circle or the Mandelbrot set.  
>
>       So you don't think the concept of 3 would be destroyed if all conscious minds in
>       the universe were destroyed? Where would 3 exist in that case?
> 
> Thoughts about 3 would be destroyed, but 3 itself would remain.

Another fundamental difference! Well, nothing knew, we've already identified
this difference. =)

> Note that 3 possesses an infinite number of properties, only an
> infinitesimal fraction of those properties have been considered by human
> minds, yet they remain out there, waiting to be discovered. So did we really
> invent 3, when it has so many innumerable properties that humans will never
> consider?  

I disagree. Math is a language, a process in the brain and does not have an
external reality or platonic universe. I have never seen any empirical evidence
for this. ;)

>       > I am not sure how one observation can imply anything about the non-existence
>       > of other possible observations. Could you elaborate?
>
>       [sni]
>       But we are here. Does that not prove that such a possibility is impossible? If
>       time is infinite in all directions, and if that would be a possibility, then
>       surely it would have been realized, and nothing would have remained left.
>
>       One could of course argue, that in another reality, a counter is invented, but
>       then again, in anothe reality a counter to the counter is invented, ad
>       infinitum.
> 
> This makes me think of Lewis's Modal Realism:
> 
> "There are so many other worlds, in fact, that absolutely every way that a
> world could possibly be is a way that some world is. And as with worlds, so it
> is with parts of worlds. There are ever so many ways that a part of a world
> could be; and so many and so varied are the other worlds that absolutely every
> way that a part of a world could possibly be is a way that some part of some
> world is." -- David Lewis in “On the Plurality of Worlds” (1986)
> 
> So there are worlds that are destroyed, but also worlds that are spared, and
> all manner of collections and combinations and groups, and so on, as you say,
> ad infinitum.
> 
> But according to how I view things, time (and change) are also illusions.
> Reality, and all its objects, are timeless and eternal. There is never any
> real destruction.
> 
> As Tegmark says: "Mathematical structures are eternal and unchanging: they
> don’t exist in space and time—rather, space and time exist in (some of) them.
> If cosmic history were a movie, then the mathematical structure would be the
> entire DVD." -- Max Tegmark in “Our Mathematical Universe” (2014)

I think you know my answer. ;) I will not pursue this further, because I would
repeat myself.

>       Or as the ancient joke goes... what is the difference between the mathematicians
>       office and the philosophers office? The philosophers office does not have a
>       garbage bin. ;)
> 
> LOL that's a good one. Why is it that these jokes always seem to favor the
> mathematicians? Don't they have better things to do than work out jokes to
> disparage the other departments? ;-)

Haha... true. On the other hand... did any philosophers ever change the
world? ;)

>       True. A very fascinating thought! Makes one think that there's nothing new under
>       the sun. Makes one wonder what the old brahmins might have come up with if they
>       had access to a mailinglist like this? Or would there have been trolling and
>       flame wars that would have prevented them from working? ;)
> 
> I think that might be why Hinduism contains so many great truths, that it was
> alive with new writers, thinking, debate, etc., and for whatever reason it
> didn't get locked into a single book, but kept growing.  

Yes, perhaps.

>       When do you think QC will have it's "wow" moment, that puts all the current
>       press releases to shame?
> 
> It's had a few so far:
> - First working quantum computer
> - First execution of Shor's algorithm to factor a number
> - Quantum supremacy

The reason I asked is that it is my impression that some people think there has
been no "wow" moment and that it is a marketing fraud. I cannot judge, but I am
intrigued by this difference of opinion among very smart men.

>       > So even pure thought experiments can be quite useful in advancing science, at
>       > least, their utility shouldn't be entirely disregarded.
>
>       Oh yes... I'm sorry if I gave the impression of thought experiments being
>       useless. You are right of course, thought experiments can be very valuable
>       tools!
> 
> No worries, I am glad we agree on this!

Agreed! =)

>       Well, maybe we are all zombies? The subjective experience of another is
>       something I at the moment never can experience, so I disregard it. In fact,
>       perhaps every other human being except me, or even including me, is a robot?
>       Never seen any evidence, so until evidence presents itself, since I by design
>       tend to treat people who behave as if they have consciousness as conscious, I
>       continue to do so until someone disproves it, or until someone increases my
>       knowledge of consciousness. I don't see what the fuzz is all about. We could all
>       be philozophical zombies... would that change your world?
> 
> I only raise it as an example where you are comfortable settling on a
> conclusion by way of theory, despite lack of any empirical evidence.

Hm, I think I responded out of turn elsewhere. Will leave this.

>       > I think "proof" only exists in mathematics, not in the material world.
>
>       Well, I did say empirical proof (ok, I might have forgotten to type it from time
>       to time, but that is what I aim to say) and I think empirical proof works and is
>       essential to science. That is another type of proof, than say, mathematical
>       proof.
> 
> I mean even empirically, speaking, I find proof too strong a word in science.
> I think evidence is better. Proof, to me, implies certainty. Though I
> understand you use it in less strict a manner.

Ah yes. This is very good. I will try to remember to speak of evidence and not
proof. Good that we cleared that up. =)

>       > All those people I cite believe in a material world. They just disagree on the
>       > material world necessarily being the most fundamental aspect of reality.
>
>       Well, let me add a very important point here. I do not know what the fundamental
>       aspect of reality is. The investigation is currently on going!
> 
> I am glad to see this. :-) I agree.

I came up with another philosophy buzz word a year ago (pareto-utilitarianism is
a new one I launched! ;) ) when we discussed this and I think it was agnostic
monism. Does that ring a bell?

If I remember correctly the idea was that what we have is "reality" loosely
defined as what we meet every day when we live. We explore it further and
further, at ever increasing levels of details, until we reach a horizon beyond
which we (currently) cannot see. The idea was that ultimately and finally, we
have no idea about the subtrate... be it strings, fnords, ideas, etc. and hence
from a certain point of view, it doesn't really matter if its ideas, atoms, hard
matter, soft matter energy.

The idea is that regardless of this, there is one fundamental substrate.

I think, but this was a year ago or more, was the underlying idea behind
agnostic monism.

>       Ok. As always, it was a pleasure to discuss!
> 
> Yes I have enjoyed this discussion immensely.

Good to hear! =)

> This field might interest you (Axiology/Value Theory):
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiology
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory

Ahh... I am no stranger to those pages. You are right... I am interested!

>       > My only frustration is that when I do present empirical evidence, you don't
>       > seem to update your "priors" accordingly (as a true Bayesian would).
>
>       Oh this can be due to several reasons. I might find the evidence not
>       satisfactory. I might not understand the evidence. It might be a question of
>       time, that is... I might think it over, reject it, encounter it again, think it
>       over, I might see a point, and finally accept it.
> 
> Thanks. I appreciate that insight to your thought process.

You're welcome. I apologize for my human stubborn side. ;)

>       "Sometimes it's hard to be agnostic..."
> 
> LOL

I think Dolly is a christian, I doubt she would ever record this one for me. ;)

>       > I am not suggesting this to be the case, only introducing a thought experiment
>       > to learn more about how you perceive Occam's razor and in what situations you
>       > would say it is misleading us.
>
>       I'd say probably that the less we know about the problem, the more it might
>       mislead us. Do you think that makes sense?
> 
> That's reasonable.

>       > I just wanted to understand you better about what it means when Occam's razor
>       > leads us astray. It seemed to me, you were thinking that if we prefer a theory
>       > by Occam, but if that theory includes other unseen universes, then it is
>       > leading us astray. Was that your meaning?
>
>       No, more that Occam himself might lead us astray when it comes to choosing
>       between options, we if don't really know what we are choosing between.
> 
> This is where I would turn to something like Kolmogorov complexity, to make it
> rigorous and objective.

Is that an established wya of comparing theories? Is it clear cut and
achievable?

>       > There is speculation that this is what the later installments of The Matrix
>       > were ultimately hinting at (that the world Neo thought he had escaped into was
>       > still just part of a larger simulation).
>
>       Yes... this is an interesting (theoretical) scenario I always think about when
>       people think they are living in a simulation. There's nothing saying that it is
>       a simulation, within a simulation, within a simulation.
> 
> Things get a lot easier when one dispenses with the either or mentality. It
> doesn't have to be one or the other. In an infinite reality, we each have
> infinite explanations. So it is not one or the other, either, or, or both, it
> is all.  

In an infinite universe, with infinite options, how do you think that affects
your ethics, and punishment? Don't you think you could act and do what ever you
want, since on the whole, it won't really matter, since all options are valid
and existing everywhere?

>       > Even if it is perfect, it is possible to break out if someone on the outside
>       > is watching, assuming we do something interesting enough for them to want to
>       > intervene or break us out. :-)
>       >
>       > Many stories begin with an air-gapped AI convincing someone on the outside to
>       > let it out.
>
>       True. Let me know if someone reaches out! That would really shake my agnostic
>       mind! =)
> 
> They could abduct a copy of you or me into their realm, and interview that
> one, without having to disturb the course of this simulation.

Spoiling all the fun!

> Perhaps every day we pause the simulation of this world, go out, stretch or
> legs, run some errands, then jump back in just where it left off when it
> paused. None of us inside need remember having taken a break, just as we don't
> remember anything of our real life on the outside. (I guess it would be like
> being severed).

True!

>       Maybe even simpler... certainty of some kind of computations, that takes place
>       in some kind of substrate? That would hold true regardless of if you are a
>       simulated person in the mind of an AI. It would still be a computation in some
>       kind of substrate (and I'm not talking crass, material substrates here).
> 
> That is assuming functionalism or computationalism, as a true theory of consciousness. But accepting that, I agree that would a
> conclusion you can draw.
>
>       > Though some have taken Descartes's dictum further to say one knows only "this
>       > thought exists" and it is a further supposition to assume there is an "I" or a
>       > "thinker" beyond that thought.  
>
>       Well, for both of those to be possible, there needs to be some form of
>       computation done "in" something.
> 
> "Even if everything in this universe were an illusion, there would still have
> to be something outside this universe that generates the illusion." -- John A.
> Leslie and Robert Lawrence Kuhn in “The Mystery of Existence” (2013)

Ahh... better way of phrasing it.

> This is why I say we can rely, partly, on the laws of logic to escape beyond
> the assumption of only one's present conscious state.  
>
>       What do you think of the anti-solipsist argument that the solipsist just by
>       arguing refutes himself?
> 
> 
> I think it can succeed only if one accepts a theory of consciousness that is not epiphenomenal.
> 
> If one believes in epiphenomenalism, then the people you see and argue with
> need not be conscious (they could be zombies, or other non-conscious
> sub-elements of your own imagination).

But I think it goes deeper than that. If you believe the others are just your
own imagination, why would you feel a need to argue the point with them? Since
they are you, you have already won the argument. You would just be shadow
boxing.

>       >       > You can consider your grandparents, and great grandparents, etc. to get as
>       >       > close to 100% as you like. :-)
>       >
>       > Want to copy the following in a reply on the other thread I opened to discuss closed vs. open individualism?
>       > (I copied and pasted the probability argument there already.)
>
>       Sounds good.
> 
> I look forward this one a lot. :-) I hope we can get somewhere.

Let's see! =)

> I greatly appreciate your response here. None of us is ever fully consistent
> and it is only in testing our ideas to the limit and trying to break them that
> we can, as you say, get a little closer to truth. ;-)

True! =)

>       "If our conscious states result from the existence of all computations, then they
>       are subject to the rules of algorithmic information theory."
>
>       How can we prove if our conscious states result from the existence of all
>       computations? I do not understand this.
> 
> That is only the assumption. To prove it (empirically) we need to examine what
> predictions follow from that assumption, then compare it against what we
> observe in the real world.
> 
> If (and its a big IF) there is a correspondence, and no prediction is refuted,
> we can build confidence in the truth of that assumption. Please see the
> sub-sections of that section to see what predictions follow, and how we have
> (so far) found empirical verification.

Got it. Thank you for the explanation.

>       > I'm only asking about your opinion on what you would or wouldn't consider as
>       > evidence of us existing in a simulation.
>
>       I'd probably think that this would be proof of many people living in a simulated
>       reality that runs in my reality. That would not change my view about that
>       reality being a simulation in another reality.
> 
> Right, it shouldn't change (immediately) your assumption about that. But it
> does cause (the rational Bayesian) to revisit the 3 options in the simulation
> argument, and update the probability estimates for each of those three
> possibilities. In particular, given the observational evidence at hand, you
> could strongly rule out:
> 
> (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a
> “posthuman” stage;
> 
> as well as:
> 
> (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant
> number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); 
>   Then following the reasoning in the argument, (short of finding a flaw in
> it), you should revise your probability estimate for yourself being within a
> simulation.

But I don't see how I could calculate and verify the calculation about a
simulation from within a simulation. But to back up a bit to an example from our
world... let's say I lived before human flight... and I saw a kite, I would
think it more likely that humans will fly, than before I ever knew kites
existed.

>       I disagree. Without consciousness there are no numbers and no truth. Both are
>       dependent on conscious minds.
> 
> How does that follow?
> 
> If electrons (themselves mathematical objects) can exist independently of
> human minds, why can't integers (which are much simpler mathematical objects
> than electrons).  

Easy! Because integers are symbols. They do not exist outside of our
consciousness as objective features of the world. They depend on a conscious
mind having learned the language, and then, at that moment in time, processing
the language. Same with truth. If nothing exists to make predictions, or to "see
if it works" the concept becomes meaningless.

Now it could be that this is just the same misunderstanding as immaterial vs
material processes when we discussed cosciouness in the other thread, so looking
at the definition of an integer might clear this difference of opinion up.

>       > I like that idea a lot. It seems to combine aspects of negative utilitarianism
>       > (minimize suffering, with conventional utilitarianism (maximize good). So if
>       > one attempts to maximize good, while not introducing harm, that seems close to
>       > the ideal.
>
>       True, I have come to the same conclusion, but I wonder if it is not open to the
>       critique that it is so demanding that ultimately, it is useless when it comes to
>       guiding ones action?
> 
> Most problems in morality seem to be incomputable. (At least at the limit, of
> ensuring one never makes a mistake) 

That is one thing I like about virtue theories. They dispense with the moral
dilemmas, and tells us to focus on developing our virtues, and if we become
virtues, trusts that we will then be able to work out good solutions to moral
dilemmas.

But of course you then have the problem of which virtues? Why those? How to
improve them and define them and so on. But I like the "side step" from theories
that work on developing rules to cover every single situation which does seem
like a futile hobby.

>       I also wonder if it does not simply collapse into some kind of personal
>       hedonism?
>
>       > "I believe that the proper utilization of time is this: if you can, serve
>       > other people, other sentient beings. If not, at least refrain from harming
>       > them." -- The 14th Dalai Lama in “The Art of Happiness” (1998)  
>
>       This could lead to the paradox of everyone trying to serve everyone! But
>       refraining from harming everyone would be less susceptible to this, since the
>       end state of no one harming anyone might be reached! ;)
> 
> It didn't perfectly match Pareto utilitarianism, but I thought it was similar,
> in saying (basically) do good, but if you can't do that, at least don't do
> bad.  

True. It is a good start.

>       That was one long session! I think we reached a agree to disagree on quite a few
>       tracks here, and also some that led us into new topics. I also would like to
>       thank you for finding inconsistencies and questioning me. This is how we get
>       closer to the truth (TM)! =)
> 
> It has been very rewarding, though increasingly time consuming. I am not sure
> how much longer I will be able to continue, but I will try. :-)  

Haha, true. Please do not feel that you have to respond. And if there is
anything specific that piques your interest, please feel free to break it out
into a separate thread, or just send me an email off list. =)

>       As Epicurus used to say...
>
>       "In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he learns the
>       most". -- Vatican Sayings, saying 74.
> 
> A wonderful quote we should all live by. :-)

Yes... Epicurus is one of my favourite philosophers. He also reached the
conclusion of the libertarian NAP by himself, and also there are seeds of
contractarianism in him. It is a shame we have so little of his writings saved.
=(

> As always, thank you Daniel.

And thank you!

Best regards, 
Daniel