[ExI] Fwd: A science-religious experience
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 18:49:46 UTC 2025
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025, 11:46 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > 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 can hope. I find that topic quite fascinating. Imagine being able to
> > converse with a whale.
>
> Would be fascinating! To a certain extend we already have communication,
> but
> imagine having a translator!
>
> Reminds me of a cuckoo I heard in the country side a couple of years ago.
> He was
> cuckooing like crazy, and I tried to respond, and he ignored me. Then it
> hit me,
> that somewhere in the country house there's an old book about birds with
> the
> added gimmick of having recorded sounds of every bird in the book, so I
> thought
> I'd have some fun with the cuckoo.
>
> So I brought out the book, and I pressed the cuckoo button, and.... dead
> silence. After a couple of minutes, the cuckoo started again, I tried to
> respond
> by imitating, no effect... I pressed the button and complete silence.
>
> Apparently, the recorded cucko said some very threatening or confusing
> words!
> Maybe the recording was a zen koan that confused the live cuckoo? ;)
>
It could be that it hears a frequency range outside the human range, and
this component was not replicated by you (and you wouldn't even be aware it
was missing), but that it was present in the book. (Just a possible theory).
I've known cats who react strongly to recorded cat meows (in videos), and
in a way that they wouldn't react if a human tried to fake the same meow.
Or perhaps the recorded sound was a cuckoo of the opposite sex, which
captured his interest, while your imitation was too perfect and sounded too
much like him. ��
> > > 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.
> >
> > We have reached an impasse on this, which I believe is due to our
> different
> > degrees of willingness to rely on deduction.
>
> I think this is a key observation. Apparently this is an old topic and I
> was
> surprised when I looked into your Nozick reference in the email to see
> that not
> only did Nozick think deeply about the closest continuator, he also thought
> deeply about why to reject the principle of deductive closure. It seems I
> have
> more in common with Nozick than I first thought. I think I'll have to
> acquire
> his Philosophical Explanations.
>
Hmm do you have a reference for what he said on deductive closure? I am not
familiar with that part.
> > > 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.
> >
> > The proof is the empirical evidence that has been gathered which refutes
> the
> > hypothesis of "A" (a single universe, not designed).
> >
> > What that leaves, is up to you to decide, but that is what the empirical
> > evidence tells us: "not A."
>
> I think one might argue about the interpretation. I have found no empirical
> proof of other universes.
I was not here claiming that there is. Only that we have empirical evidence
against A.
Do you disagree with this?
But as stated above, our differences reharding the
> principle of deductive closure is one of the very few things that between
> us.
> Disregarding that, I think your deductions and ideas are well thought out,
> given
> your terms and the definition of your terms.
>
Thanks.
Do you agree with logic at least? If A, B, and C are exhaustive (cover the
full possibility space), then: "not A" ==> (B or C).
Here is an example:
Some piece of matter in my position is (when at a certain pressure and
temperature) either solid, liquid, or gas.
If I tell you this matter is "not liquid", then you can conclude it must be
(solid or gas).
This is the extent to which I am applying logical deduction. It is, I
think, basic, elementary, and uncontroversial.
Do you think otherwise?
Jason
> With that in mind, as you say, I think I'll let this thread rest. Maybe
> someone
> else will pick it up? =)
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> >
> > > 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 know "not A".
> >
> > We don't know if it is B or C, but we know for sure (as sure as we can
> be about anything) that it can't be A.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > That's irrelevant, in my view. We can know that no one has ever seen a
> married bachelor anywhere in any possible universe, using
> > logic alone. Note that this is true whether we are in a position to
> observe them or not, we can still be confident in that
> > conclusion. A blind person could, for example, reach this conclusion,
> despite not being able to see anything (and hence, reasons from
> > the standpoint of having no personally accessible empirical evidence).
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > It's still logically true. What the sentence means is:
> >
> > "A pink multi-dimensional unicorn exists, or A pink multi-dimensional
> unicorn does not exist."
> >
> > Clearly, one of those two sub-propositions is true, and because they are
> connected with an "OR" this means the sentence overall is
> > true (everywhere, everywhen, in every possible universe).
> >
> > Note that if we used an "AND" rather than an "OR" then the sentence
> would be universally false, since we know one of the two
> > sub-propositions is false.
> >
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> > We have empirically verified the improbable nature of all the
> dimensionless constants having the values they happen to have. Take
> > these images for example:
> >
> >
> https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/tegmark-spacetime-dimensionality.png
> >
> https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/tegmark-strong-force-coupling-constant.png
> >
> https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/barnes-particle-masses-forces-chemistry-1024x771.png
> >
> https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/tegmark-matter-density-q-1024x966.png
> >
> > "It is logically possible that parameters determined uniquely by
> abstract theoretical principles just happen to exhibit all the
> > apparent fine-tunings required to produce, by a lucky coincidence, a
> universe containing complex structures. But that, I think,
> > really strains credulity."
> > -- Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek in “Physics Today” (2006)
> >
> > Would you agree that Frank Wilczek is talking about things we have
> empircally measured, when he talks about all the parameters that
> > have apparently been finely-tuned? (i.e., that he isn't talking about
> abstract, theoretical things here).
> >
> >
> > That one universe exists. I think this is a very
> > uncontroversial statement and true in every common meaning of the
> word true.
> >
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean here. If you are rerring to my phrasing
> "there is not one universe", I mean "the number of universes = 1"
> > is not true. Of course, there is at least 1 universe, so we know the
> number is not 0, or negative. So we should take, on the basis of
> > our observational evidence of at least one univer, that if the number of
> universes is not equal to 1, and given that it is not 0 or
> > negative, this means that there are multiple universes. i.e., "number of
> universes > 1"
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Not agreeing with B or C isn't a matter of debate. If A is false, then
> either B or C must be true.
> >
> > Again we can reach this conclusion by way of pure logic, without the
> need of any empirical observation.
> >
> > We only introduced empirical observations to rule out A, which is why we
> are now in the present situation of: either B or C.
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
> > I think there were points of unclarity which I hope I have resolved with
> my further clarification. If my point is still unclear, I am
> > happy to explain further.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > We can debate or question its utility, but we shouldn't question its
> reliability/validity.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > But isn't the point of science to use observations to build and refine
> our theories?
> >
> >
> > > 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 am glad we settled on the root of our disagreement here.
> >
> >
> > > > 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?
> >
> >
> > I think there is some element of that, in the sense that our current
> theories are so good, that the range of where theories give
> > different predictions requires such extremes of energy, or density, etc.
> that progress is difficult to come by.
> >
> > But I don't think that is what is the issue with Copenhagen. I think
> Copenhangen was just a poorly conceived idea that never had any
> > hope of being a valid theory, and the entire motivation for assuming it
> in the first place was shown to be in error by Everett. (He
> > was able to explain collapse as a subjective illusion, without having to
> assume it as some real objective phenomenon (as Copenhagen
> > does)). So what Copehagen set out to explain, in fact, didn't need to be
> explained, as it can be fully derived from the existing
> > basic postulates of QM. So at this point, as a theory it is kind of
> "dead on arrival" -- it died before it even was attempted to be
> > mathematically formalized.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Very interesting.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Okay. For what it's worth, I see one's consciousness (and its possible
> paths of continuation) as being a plausible link between
> > different universes.
> > It is not then that some other universe can be brought into ours, but
> rather that you (your consciousness) can be brought into other
> > universes. So to me, it is not entirely idle speculation.
> >
> > And for those seeking scientific answers to questions of fine-tuning,
> the origin of the big bang, or the workings of quantum
> > computers, then other universes must be invoked as elements of those
> explanations.
> >
> >
> > So I guess a "flat out" don't care it not entirely correct.
> >
> >
> > That's good!
> >
> > > [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.
> >
> >
> > On that point we agree.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Yes (but I think my point was new, we relied on statistical arguments
> for other things we couldn't (at the time) directly see:
> > atoms). And those arguments were accepted by the broader scientific
> community.
> >
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> > Now that you mention it, there was something I read or heard a long time
> ago about a professor (I think of psychology) who worked out
> > the set of metaphysical questions that he thought could reliably predict
> someone's political leanings.
> > Unfortunately I do not recall enough of that reference to find it.
> > Maybe this is it? It is just something that came up when I did some
> casual searches, but I haven't read the paper to confirm
> > it: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1406455
> >
> >
> > > > 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. =)
> >
> >
> > Wonderful. We should make a list. :-)
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > How many integer factors does 0 have?
> >
> > 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. ;)
> >
> >
> > If we assume a physical universe, we can't explain the existence of
> mathematical objects. If they exist at all, they have to be added
> > as a further assumption.
> >
> > If instead we assume mathematical objects, then the physical universe
> falls out automatically as a consequence of the existence of
> > mathematical objects. No further assumptions are required.
> >
> > Which then, is the simpler theory?
> >
> >
> > > 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? ;)
> >
> >
> > I think if you reframe your question as "Did any *idea* ever change the
> world?" the answer is made clearer.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > The people who say they haven't been wowed yet are waiting for a
> practical application (which I have reasons to doubt will ever
> > come).
> >
> > The source of the wow, for me, lies in the implications stemming from
> the fact that they work at all (wow, this means there's a ton
> > of other universes out there!)
> >
> >
> > > > 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! =)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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 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?
> >
> >
> > It took me a while, but I remember it now.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > It reminds me a bit of Russell's "neutral monism" -- he made no claims
> as to the nature of this neutral stuff, but he postulated its
> > existence.
> >
> >
> > > 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!
> >
> >
> > It comes as no surprise to me, given your depth of discussion on these
> topics, that you had seen these before. :-)
> >
> >
> > > > 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. ;)
> >
> >
> > Me too, as I am sure it seems to others that I can be. :-)
> >
> >
> > > "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 think it's only a matter of raising enough money. :-)
> >
> > In any case, with AI voice cloning, it is now easy enough to create for
> your own private appreciation.
> >
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> > Well it is recognized, but unfortunately, it is of limited practical
> utility, since finding the shortest program that generates a
> > particular output is a computationally intractable problem.
> >
> > For example, to find the shortest program that outputs the 20 bit string
> "1001100110100011" (assuming there is one shorter than 20
> > bits) would require running 2^20 programs to their completion. 2^20 is
> itself not an insurmountable number for computers (roughly a
> > million) but what is insurmountable is the fact that some of those
> millions of programs may never stop running. And (as Turing proved
> > with his Halting problem) there is no way to determine whether those
> programs that seem to run on forever, may eventually (some day)
> > finish, and may possibly output that string we were looking for.
> >
> > But despite these limitations, it is seen as an important result, for
> example it defines a bound in the field like data compression.
> > One could do no better for compression, than finding the shortest
> program that generates the compressed information as its output.
> >
> > And even when we cannot prove a shortest program, if we have two
> theories, and we want to gauge their relative complexity, we can try
> > to express the theories programmatically as efficiently as possible, and
> that would provide a rough comparison of the overall
> > relative complexity of the two theories. The only complication is we
> might later discover there is in fact, an even shorter way of
> > writing a program that represents one of those theories, and so that
> could cause us to change our opinion as to which one is simpler.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> > On the contrary, I think under this view, one's decisions take on vastly
> more weight. This follows because any action you choose will
> > affect vast untold numbers of future versions of yourself, and others,
> across the multiverse.
> >
> > There is an ancient saying that comes to mind, which I think expresses
> this view that follows from conceiving oneself as living in
> > such a multiverse:
> >
> > "Whoever destroys a single soul, destroys an entire world; whoever saves
> a single soul, saves an entire world."
> > -- Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5
> >
> >
> > > > 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!
> >
> >
> > Heh.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Your way was fine! I just thought you would appreciate seeing others who
> agree with you. :-)
> > And note that I agree with your/their logic here too.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Well, need doesn't necessarily come into it.
> >
> > One can dream about being chased by a monster in one's dream, which is
> itself a figment of their imagination.
> > You could ask why fight with monsters in your dream? But the dreams are
> not necessarily in your control, and the same could be said
> > of the experiences of the solipsist.
> >
> >
> > > 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! =)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > ��
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (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 could see someone revising their assumed probability of 1% up to say
> 10%.
> >
> > Likewise, if someone thought simulated consciousness was impossible
> (maybe they subscribed to Searle's biological naturalism, or
> > panpsychism) but then saw evidence that certain materials were not
> needed, that the uploaded brains worked the same regardless of the
> > hardware of the computer on which they were run, then that person could,
> upon seeing functional uploads who claimed to be conscious
> > and acted as if they were conscious, update their assumed probability
> from 1% to 10%.
> >
> > (Note these are just example probabilities) if you wanted harder
> figures, you would have to do more detailed calculations to take
> > into account, for example, to count the number of simulated lives vs.
> non-simulated lives, etc.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > We have symbols we use for integers, yes. Likewise, we have the symbol
> "e-" for electrons.
> >
> > But note the fact that we have symbols for something, is not a
> demonstration that the objects (to which the symbols refer) have no
> > independent existence beyond the symbols.
> >
> > For example: the fact that we use "e-" as a symbol for electrons, is not
> proof that electrons do not exist.
> >
> > They do not exist outside of our
> > consciousness as objective features of the world.
> >
> >
> > This is, for what I can see, purely an assumption of yours.
> >
> > They depend on a conscious
> > mind having learned the language, and then, at that moment in
> time, processing
> > the language.
> >
> >
> > Our discovery of their properties depends on these things. But again,
> that tells us nothing about whether these things have an
> > independent existence or not.
> >
> > Same with truth. If nothing exists to make predictions, or to "see
> > if it works" the concept becomes meaningless.
> >
> >
> > But my theory is that the existence of mathematical objects is what
> gives us a reality to see in the first place. It is therefore not
> > meaningless, but the source of all observations we ever have that
> provide any meaning.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Mathematical objects are things that have independent, objective,
> discoverable properties, and for which we develop theories about
> > (we call axiomatic systems).
> > Physical objects are things which have independent, objective,
> discoverable properties, and for which we develop theories about (we
> > call them laws of physics).
> >
> > Both constitute objective fields, concerning things whose properties are
> objective and discoverable, and we try to make frameworks of
> > thought that describe the objects of those systems. Given that both
> fields concern themselves with things beyond us, which are
> > discovered not invented, and which have objective properties, then I
> think we should equally consider them to be fields concerning
> > objects that exist independently of us. That is to say, the number 7 was
> prime before any mathematician was born who proved 7 to be
> > prime. That is enough to conclude that integers have properties
> independent of us.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it's easy, but in being easy they are at best, unjustified, and at
> worst, wrong.
> >
> > I think there are no shortcuts (like this passage expresses):
> >
> https://archive.org/details/mindsifantasiesr0000hofs/page/342/mode/2up?q=%22definition+of+the+devil%22
> >
> >
> > > 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. =)
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > =(
> >
> >
> > Interesting, I did not know that. I should read more of him.
> >
> >
> > > As always, thank you Daniel.
> >
> > And thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250311/884ddb7d/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list