<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 27, 2023, 5:33 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thank you Jason, makes much more sense now, and I think that I'm not too <br>
far off the mark when it comes to theory vs proof vs method.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm happy to hear that. ☺ï¸</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></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>
But as you can tell, I tend to be annoyingly agnostic sometimes. ;)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don't mind it. Agnosticism is the best position to be in to learn.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></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 agree. The universe, or reality, being bigger than we previously thought, in no way diminishes our central role as observers to<br>
> that reality. If anything it makes us even more special, rare, unique, and important. (E.g., consider the 10^122 dead universes out<br>
> there for every one that can support life), and how much more precious that makes this universe, and this planet.<br>
<br>
Being annoyingly agnostic, I love the fact that there is so much we<br>
still don't know, and I am looking forward to all the scientists who<br>
will enlarge our sphere of knowledge and awareness of ourselves and our<br>
position in the universe.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes. I think given Godel's incompleteness theorem, there will always be things we don't know, no matter how far we progress.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></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>
At the same time I find it hard to understand people who feel that<br>
everything needs an answer right now, no matter the cost, and as a <br>
last resort make up answers.<br>
<br>
Oh, and just so you don't understand me, that was a jab against religion<br>
and not theorizing and and doing philosophy. ;)</blockquote></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>
Best regards, <br>
Daniel</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></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>
<br>
> <br>
> Jason <br>
> <br>
> Â <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Best regards,<br>
>Â Â Â Â Daniel<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On Sunday, August 27, 2023, <efc@swisscows.email> wrote:<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Thank you Jason,<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So would that imply then that there is no true randomness and that it is only because our limited point<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of view, that it<br>
>          looks random? <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â There is a "meta level" of machinery kind of?<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Yes, super determinism says there are hidden variables, determined by machinery we can't access, but<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â moreover, everything we do to<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â try to measure these hidden variables, by whatever processes we choose, flipping coins, picking numbers in<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â our head, using digits of<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Pi or e, using pseudorandom number generators, anything, whatever we pick and whatever method we choose, the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â universe will choose<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â hidden variables such that they will yield the Bell probabilities giving the false appearance of random<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â quantum collapse, where there<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â are not. But if this is true, and if we use constants in math like Pi or e, or SQRT(2), to choose how to set<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the rotation of a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â polarizing filter when measuring two entangled photons, then somehow the universe must have known that you<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â would be using, say, the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â digits of SQRT(2) when it created the entangled photons years earlier before you measured them. So that in a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â sense, the photon pair<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â creation event must have known how you would be measuring them, and then generated them in a way that would<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â yield the expected<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â quantum probabilities. It would also know you wouldn't in the last moment, change your mind to use the digits<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of Pi to choose the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â angle of rotation for the polarizing filter. Super determinism is the idea that the whole universe is a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â conspiracy to make us falsely<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â believe in quantum probabilities.<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Sorry if I'm not making sense, it is because I did not understand the example. ;)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â If it's hard to understand it's because it's so hard to believe anyone would propose this as a serious<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â theory, but that's the length<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the center of the universe or solar system, at least I think it comes from the same place).<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Jason<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Best regards,<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Daniel<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On Sunday, August 27, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Thank you very much Stuart, I was just about to ask for a book and you already thought of<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â that.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â But what about superdeterminism?<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In my view this is the worst of all possible interpretations. It is the theory that the laws of<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â physics are<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â conspiring to always fool<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â us. (Something like Descartes's evil demon). For example, if we choose to do a Bell experiment<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â and set our<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â orientations according to<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â some random sequence, super determinism says the correlations of the particles are also<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â determined by the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â same processes that drive<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the random number generator we use to set our orientations.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Okay, this is weird, but not logically impossible.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â But now consider if we set our orientations according to the digits of Pi, did the processes that<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â determine<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â particle orientations<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â also determine the digits of Pi? At this point I think super determinism is no longer defensible.<br>
><br>
>             Jason <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Wouldn't that also be one of the better "candidates" even though it goes<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â against our intuition?<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Best regards,<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Daniel<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â On 2023-08-26 15:17, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hello Stuart,<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â edge physics.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â You say that<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â If you believe that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â because you<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â are already immortal. You don't need to copy yourself because there are<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â already<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, you strewn about the multiverse.<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â proof or is it<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â one of<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â many interpretations of current theories?<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Best regards, Daniel<br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hi Daniel,<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â It is not proven in a mathematical sense, but many worlds (MWI) is the only<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â interpretation of<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â quantum<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â mechanics that is complete. All that you need for many worlds to be true is that the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Schrodinger<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â equation be<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â true. The alternatives require extra stuff.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â For example, collapse interpretations need an additional mechanism by which<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â measurement can<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â somehow cause a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â quantum particle that is spread out everywhere at once to suddenly be somewhere<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â specific at<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â faster than the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â speed of light. It requires consciousness to be a fundamental property of the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â universe in the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â sense that like<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â the next level of videogame, nothing is rendered into reality until you look at it.<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Basically, if<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â collapse<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â interpretations are real, then we are very likely in a simulation run by some<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â intelligent<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â designer who is<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â trying to save computational resources by not rendering anything into reality until a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â simulated<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â person<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â interacts with it.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Many worlds allows particles to always be everywhere at once because wherever the<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â particle is,<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â there is a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â separate you there to witness it there.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The other alternative is the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation which require a<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â second<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â equation that<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â describes how the wave function is a pilot wave that pushes a particle along its path<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â to be true<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â in addition<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â to the Schrodinger wave equation which describes the wave function.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So to summarize:<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 1. Copenhagen/collapse interpretations needs additional assumptions about the laws of<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â physics<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â requiring<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â conscious observers in order to function properly. Trees do not fall in the woods or<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â make noise<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â unless you<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â are there to appreciate it.<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 2. Debroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave: This interpretation requires additional "helper"<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â equations to allow<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â quantum<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â mechanics to function by keeping track of hidden variables.<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3. Superdeterminism: everything that happens including your own thoughts and<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â decisions are<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â unerringly<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â following a script that has existed from moment of the big bang.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Or . . .<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 4. MWI: The Schrondinger wave equation is all you need and there is enough real<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â estate out there<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â to cover<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â every possibility that the wavefunction entails.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4</a><br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Sean Carroll does an excellent job covering this in his various You Tube videos or<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â his book<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "Something Deeply<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hidden". I generally don't believe we live in a simulation and therefore prefer many<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â worlds over<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â conscious<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â collapse theories, but every once in a while nature throws me a curve ball that makes<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â me adjust<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â my posterior<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â probabilities like this:<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194212940/question-mark-space-webb-telescope-photo" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194212940/question-mark-space-webb-telescope-photo</a><br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I hope that helped.<br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Best regards,<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Stuart LaForge<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â _______________________________________________<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â extropy-chat mailing list<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â _______________________________________________<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â extropy-chat mailing list<br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
>Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>