[ExI] Fwd: A science-religious experience

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 6:18 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> >       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. ��
>
> Haha... true! ;) Yes, you are right of course. Any number of theories could
> explain it. I was just fascinated with the 1 to 1 match of playing the
> recording
> and getting the cuckoo to stop. It felt as if I scared him or insulted
> him. ;)
>
> I wonder if recording like this actually work for some species? But I guess
> we'll have to find a biology mailinglist to find out, unless... it could be
> argued that this is the first step to uplifting our dear friends! ;)
>
> >       >       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.
>
> He writes about it in his book Philosophical Explanations, and there is
> also
> this wikipedia page which is very anemic:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure
>
> See section "Epistemic closure and skeptical arguments".
>

Thank you!


>
> Reading up on the actual source (the book) is on my to do list, but I
> don't know
> when I'll get to it.
>

I too am interested in the book, but have not read it.


>
> >       >       > 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?
>
> I don't know. What is the evidence? It could very well be that you already
> provided it and I lost in the the reply somewhere. If so I apologize. If
> not,
> give me a link and I'll have a look.
>

The evidence is the improbability of the constants being in the right range
for life to exist. For example, the cosmological constant is predicted to
be uniformly distributed in the range [-1, 1] but happens to be tuned to
120 decimal places to be in the narrow range (just slightly above zero) and
had it been ever so slightly different, there would be no complex
structures in the universe. We could use the fine-tuning of this constant
to rule out (to a confidence of approximately 1 - (10^-120)) theory "A" --
the theory that it was just blind luck that got us here with a single
universe that was not designed. If we rule this out, then we are left with
B or C.


>
> >       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).
>
> Yes, if we put on our "logic" glasses, regardless of what A, B and C is
> (that
> can always be argued when it is used to reason about events in the physical
> world) I think the the logic is sound.
>

��


>
> Without now recalling the exact original text, the two things I am
> uncertain of
> is A, B and C themselves, and the validity of infering from tangible
> results, to
> non-tangible ones. But that's old ground.
>
> > 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).
>
> Agreed!
>
> > This is the extent to which I am applying logical deduction. It is, I
> think,
> > basic, elementary, and uncontroversial.
>
> Yes!
>
> > Do you think otherwise?
>
> No... and when it comes to empirically verifiable facts, there is
> definitely a
> use case for logic as a tool.
>

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250318/047832cd/attachment.htm>