<br><br>On Sunday, April 26, 2020, Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
On 25/04/2020 23:57, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 10:32
AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.<wbr>org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think you mean 'mind' when you say 'soul', but then you
invite <br>
accusations of supernatural thinking by saying things like
"your <br>
consciousness is eternal, uncreated, immortal, can
reincarnate, <br>
resurrect, and is in a manner one with all other
consciousnesses".<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It may sound supernatural, but those are just
natural consequences of standard scientific theories.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You have a strange idea of 'standard', and quite possibly
'scientific', too.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Or you could ask what scientific theories I am referring to.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
<br>
No scientific theory I've heard of states that minds are eternal or
'uncreated' (what does that even mean?). </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I appreciate you asking for clarification. I'm happy to explain and clear up anything that's unclear.</div><div><br></div><div> Special relativity implies spacetime, which means there is no such thing as an objective present point in time. This implies "block time" the idea that in reality the universe is a static unchanging 4 dimensional block rather than a 3d one evolving through time. Thus, all times are equally real, every thing in every time exists eternally and has always existed.</div><div><br></div><div>See this paper for an explanation:</div><div><a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf">http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>But you don't have to take my word for it, or read that paper. It was Einstein's own conclusion regarding his own theory:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm">http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm</a><br></div><div>"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."<br></div><div><br></div><div>When his friend died, be wrote a letter to his widow, explaining, that though he died a little bit before Einstein that it means nothing, because: "for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."</div><div><br></div><div>Do you count special relativity as a standard scientific theory?</div><div><br></div><div>Do you follow it's consequences that it implies everyone lives their lives in an eternal sense? That we each occupy all points in time across our lives forever. That Julius Caesars is from his perspective, still alive and back in 2000 BC, (or you might say, 2000 light years away from our location in spacetime.)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>Those are definitely
religious concepts that take no notice of the natural world. The
other words we've already dealt with, I think you're just using the
wrong (or should i say misleading) terminology.<br>
<br>
Ben: So what, exactly, is Consciousness?. But don't worry if <br>
you can't answer that. Nobody else can either.<br>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Jason: I provided a definition and example in my
previous email.</div>
<br>
An actual definition of consciousness? Strange that I don't remember
reading that. Could you repeat it please?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I defined consciousness as awareness of information, and said that it can arise in any information processing system which can enter different states based upon that information. </div><div><br></div><div>Human consciousness is difficult to provide a reductionist account for because information processing systems are inherently non reductionist. A complex process cannot be reduced to simpler terms, as there's a notion of a minimum descriptive length for a program that achieves a certain feat. (See: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity</a> )</div><div><br></div><div>But I did say the simplest atom of consciousness might be a conditional (e.g. an if-statement).</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
<br>
<br>
Jason: What about a mathematical Boltzmann brain? Is that not
independent of matter and energy?<br>
<div dir="auto"><br>
No. (or Yes, in the same sense that Santa Claus is).<br>
</div>
As far as I understand, mathematical platonism is an arguing point
for philosophers, of no real consequence to the real world.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually it's of the greatest consequence for the "real world". If true, it explains the appearance of what you call the real world, why the laws are simple, why they're fine tuned for life, why we live in a reality with quantum mechanics, and so on.</div><div><br></div><div>These ideas have been explored by Bruno Marchal, Max Tegmark, Russell Standish and Markus Muller.</div><div><br></div><div>For example see how much of physics can be recovered from assuming the existence of all computations:</div><div> <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826">https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826</a></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> I don't
know what a mathematical Boltzmann brain could be, or if it makes
any sense, even in the context of mathematical platonism, but as far
as I can tell, the idea is about as relevant as demonology.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I brought it up because you said information only exists if there's matter or energy. This was a counter example.</div><div><br></div><div>You might say it's meaningless, but it's the default theory of mathematicians. That they are exploring and discovering things and truths that exist independently of them. This implies those mathematical structures have an existence independent of physical existence.</div><div><br></div><div>But if you keep thinking on this, you might realize among those mathematical objects is something indistinguishable from our physical universe. Could it be? Might our physical universe might itself be a mathematical object? One among an infinity of all possible structures.</div><div><br></div><div>This would explain the question that vexed Stephen Hawking, what breathes fire into the equations? The answer is simple. All universes described by all equations are real. There's nothing special about our own equations or universe except that they describe a universe where it's possible for life to evolve.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
<br>
In the real world, information only exists as the arrangement of
matter/energy, not an independent thing. Saying "if mathematical
platonism is true..." is not an argument, unless you can send me the
abstract number 42, without involving any matter or energy.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>It's relevant as if some Turing machine elsewhere in reality simulates you then you have a nonzero chance of finding yourself kidnapped and in that new location beyond this universe.</div><div><br></div><div>That Turing machine need not exist in a universe with quarks, photons, or leptons or anything else you might call matter or energy here.</div><div><br></div><div>Here's a question for you: do you think Pi has infinite digits?</div><div>If so, where do those infinite digits exist?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
Jason: If you don't attempt to or want to understand my points then
you're right, this is going to be frustrating and pointless for the
both of us<br>
<br>
I've been attempting to understand what you're saying, and so far
I've come to the conclusion that either you have no intention or
desire to distinguish between magic and reality, or you need to
drastically revise your vocabulary if you expect anyone to
understand you.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ask more questions. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>It should be clear by now I'm not speaking about magic. My point is only that if we take existing theories seriously we're lead to conclusions that could easily be confused with magic. This shouldn't be entirely alien to Transhumanists who believe the future potential of technology will lead to near magic sounding capabilities.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
<br>
If you'd (if it's possible to) drop the mystical terminology and
stick to words that belong to the realm of the real world, that
might help a lot. If that's not possible, I don't see how what
you're saying is any more relevant to the real world than a Harry
Potter story.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What alternative words do you propose for the following concepts?</div><div><br></div><div>"Dying in one body and being reborn in a new body?"</div><div>(Reincarnation)</div><div><br></div><div>"Not being able to experience death from a first person perspective and hence live indefinitely into the future"</div><div>(immortality)</div><div> </div><div>"Living timelessly and eternally in all moments of your life forever"</div><div>(eternal life)</div><div><br></div><div>"Dying in one realm or universe and awakening as a new being in a different realm or universe with the memories of that life, or otherwise being brought back from the dead"</div><div>(resurrection)</div><div><br></div><div>"The immaterial, non destructible, non physical informational pattern that defines a person's mind and consciousness"</div><div>(soul)</div><div><br></div><div>I use these terms because they're the words that seem to fit best, but if you could recommend better words I will switch.</div><div><br></div><div>Note that science didn't throw out the word Earth when we discovered it was round, nor did we throw out the word heat when we realized fire isn't an element. Instead we refined and improved our understanding if what those words mean. If we can do the same for concepts like reincarnation, why throw out the word?</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div> </div>