<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 3:49 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> All it requires is one universal wave function that evolves as Schrodinger's deterministic equation says wave functions should evolve.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>That's it.</font></blockquote>
<br><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>But Schrodinger's equation is time-dependent so that would imply some sort of multiversal absolute time. Something that Einstein demonstrated was impossible. Didn't he?<br></i></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">No, Einstein demonstrated it was unnecessary, but as I have said General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible theories, although both work very well within their realm of applicability, General Relativity works great for gravity but can say nothing about the nuclear forces, quantum mechanics can say a lot about the nuclear forces but can't say anything about gravity. One theory works for things that are large and massive and the other theory works for things that are small and light, the problem is that there are places where things are both small and massive, and in those places physics has no idea what's going on. Resolving the contradiction between these two very good theories is probably the main goal of modern physics<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">,</span> and it's not going to happen until somebody develops <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">a</span> quantum theory of gravity. </font><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>If calling it "free will" bothers you, why not call it "agency" instead?</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">And who has agency? Somebody who has free will. And who has free will? Somebody who has agency. And round and round we go. </font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><i>> </i></span><i>I have to assume at some point in your life you did something that you perceived that your mind was responsible for having you do? </i></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Mind is what the brain does, so if my brain caused me to turn left rather than right it must've been because neurons firing in my brain caused me to do it. And those neurons either fired in that way for a reason in which case it was deterministic, or they fired in that way for no reason at all in which case it was random.</font><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Like perhaps replying to this email for example? What do you want to call that? Or do you not believe you have choices? Do you believe the future is already written?<br></i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">If there is no way to predict even in theory what's going to happen next<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> and the only way to find out is to wait and see then it doesn't really matter if the future is already written or not, it's not even clear what "already written" could mean. And we know for a fact that things like that do exist, for example it would be easy to set up a Turing Machine to find the first even number that is not the sum of two primes and then stop, but I can't predict what this very simple machine will do even in theory, all I can do is watch and wait and see what it does, and I might be waiting forever. </span></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>It could be that the Real Numbers are not really<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>real because there are only about 10^83 atoms in the observable universe<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>and physics has never discovered a googolplex number of anything much less<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>a aleph-0 or aleph-1 infinite number of them.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Sure it has: The Hamiltonian for those 10^83 atoms has ((10^83)^2 - 10^83)/2 = 5*10^165 potential energy terms for those atoms,</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">Your number is a <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">5</span> followed by 165 zeros,<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> a</span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>googolplex is 10^(10^100), that's a 1 followed by 10^100 zeros<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">. Saying that one number is astronomically larger than the other would be a vast understatement, but that's about the strongest word the English language provides. Compared to a googolplex </span>5*10^165<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> is zero to</span> a wonderfully good approximation. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> <font size="4">If uncomputable numbers are physically manifest then our physical eyes<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>should see evidence for at least one of them being at work in the physical<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>universe, but so far there is no such evidence.</font></blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Maybe the physical manifestation of uncomputable numbers are <br>
responsible for the huge number of paranormal experiences people have <br>
claimed to have had consistently over many centuries of recorded <br>
history. Stuff like UFOs, bigfoot, and ghosts not to mention Jesus on <br>
the way to Damascus?</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">Or maybe not!<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> I think it would be a mistake, the same sort of mistake Plato made, to say<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>the physical hypotenuse of a cardboard square is just an approximation of<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>he hypotenuse of the abstract unit square, I think it would be much more<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>accurate to say the hypotenuse of the abstract unit square is just an<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>approximation of the hypotenuse of a physical cardboard square.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>Approximations are simpler than the real deal, and a computer model of a<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>hurricane is much simpler than a real physical hurricane.</font></blockquote>
<br><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Mistake? Plato could have been right. Why would you use something so crude as a cardboard square to test something so precise?</i></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Because no physicist has ever seen a mathematical hypotenuse, however they have seen lines that connect diagonal corners on cardboard squares. Mathematics is the language of physics but mathematics is not physics. English is a language too but the English word "<i>cow</i>" cannot give milk.</font><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
> Theories are only useful when they can make testable predictions, when they<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>start predicting infinities that robs them of their ability to do that. The<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>Planck scale Is the point where Quantum Mechanics stops being useful, and<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>the center of a Black Hole marks the point where General Relativity stops<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>being useful. What if anything goes on a scale smaller than the Planck<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>scale and at the center of black holes is unknown.</font></blockquote>
<br><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I think that if two theories that have never been falsified both <br>
independently stop being useful in a place that cannot be observed, <br>
even in principle, then maybe it is a mistake to assume that anything <br>
goes on in that place at all.</i></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Something was certainly going on during the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang because it eventually produce the universe we see today, but we don't know what was going on because at time things were very small and very dense and very massive, and neither General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics can say what happens in situations like that. But something sure is hell was going on. We need to find a way to resolve the inherent contradiction between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, but that's not gonna happen until somebody finds a quantum theory of gravity.</font><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font size="4">
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> What exactly is it that people do that cuckoo clocks don't? There is<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>nothing mystical about a "decision", it was either made for a reason in<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>which case we call it a rational decision, or it was made for no<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>reason in which case we call it a irrational decision.</font></blockquote>
<br><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span>Cuckoo clocks cannot split universes by chiming every possible hour at once for starters.</i></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Some cuckoo clocks just keep chiming continuously and won't stop until they run out of energy, human beings would call such a thing a malfunction but it's still just cause and effect; For one reason or another one part of the clock is now different from what it was before (a break in the drive wheel or whatever) and so it behaves differently than the it did before. In one Everett universe the drive wheel broke and in another it did not.</font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"><br></font><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> ><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span><i> In other words, things that make decisions, always do so deliberately.*<br></i><br>
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> <font size="4">And a thing does something deliberately if it has decided to do so. And<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>round and round we go.<br></font>
<br><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Not quite. All agents have a purpose when making decisions,</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4">And what is a purpose?<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">T</span>he reason something is done.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> And what is a reason? A cause. What comes after a cause? An effect .</span></font></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
>><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> So for example in nature, temperatures dropping precipitously could<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>never directly cause the spontaneous combustion of fuel.*<br><br><font size="4">
><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span> Not so, all that would be needed for that to happen would be a battery, a<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>thermostat and a match head.<br></font>
<br><i>
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>The unlikely confluence of all those components speaks of purpose and intent. Both hallmarks of agency.<br></i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I'm n</span>ot sure exactly what you mean by the words<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>purpose<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">,</span> intent<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> or </span>agency<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">,</span><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> but whatever you mean by them do you think a Turing Machine would be incapable of embodying those qualities? </span></font></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4"><br></font></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">John K Clark</font></span></div><div><br></div></div></div>