<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:11 AM 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello Jason,<br>
<br>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
> I'm not ruling them out, but as far as my reality goes, at the moment,<br>
> they, like god, are not part of it until further evidence presents itself.<br>
> <br>
> What would you say about the measurements from the Planck satellite which confirm the theory of inflation, and inflation (generally<br>
... <br>
> (Just some examples I like to bring up to show scientist often use theories for things we can't see, so MW is not a unique or special<br>
> case in this regard. For whatever reason people seem more willing to accept the infinite universes of external inflation than MW)<br>
<br>
On a detailed level, I have very little to say, since I have not studied<br>
these questions deeply. But, related to our conversation, I'd definitely<br>
say that there are varying degrees of certainty and belief.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
> When taking the step from physical objects, or by extension, our<br>
> universe, to god or multiple universes, I'd very much not trust<br>
> inference, but would very much like to verify.<br>
> <br>
> Trust but verify. 😉<br>
<br>
Always! ;)<br>
<br>
> Got it. No, my opinion is that it is not empirical. It is an attempt at<br>
> explanation, but not proof. Does the explanation have some kind of power<br>
> of prediction?<br>
> <br>
> Perhaps this is the role filled by abductive reasoning:<br>
> <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning</a><br>
<br>
I really like the formulation:<br>
<br>
"Abductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible<br>
conclusion but does not definitively verify it. Abductive conclusions do<br>
not eliminate uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms<br>
such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive<br>
reasoning as inference to the best explanation,[3] although not all<br>
usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are<br>
equivalent."<br>
<br>
Relating to your examples above, plausible conclusion but does not<br>
definitely verify it. Since the galaxies will never be seen, that's<br>
about the best we can do, and we will forever live without certainty.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Earlier you asked a thought-provoking question. Something like: Can a good explanation count as evidence for a theory being true?</div><div><br></div><div>As it happens, there are reasons why good explanations so often end up being right. Some fairly recent results show that if certain ensemble theories are right, there is a reason that occam's razor works. I explain it somewhat here: <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Why_the_Laws_are_Simple">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Why_the_Laws_are_Simple</a></div><div><br></div><div>Here are some of the important references:</div><div><ul><li>Ray Solomonoff who developed Solomonoff <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference">inductive inference</a>, wrote "<a href="https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/273276/1-s2.0-S0019995800X01210/1-s2.0-S0019995864902232/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEMf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIADOeJQpvH9SPeWP1f%2Bd%2Fc4xxjR4A6A8lASi5pbaOPemAiBivTzoiwo0EOJ%2BaXTkxRNv5WNmm848czZivKqvxBZfYSq8BQiP%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAUaDDA1OTAwMzU0Njg2NSIMC7C5F%2Bv%2F%2Ff8PZuT0KpAFiElIlZfgXc4Z5HS7eWlw9P7avSON%2BXIZhiarOzCTkr28M24T4GWUePrZzQ3wvrx0FsAcMmzaizFkuGGz2GlYsr%2FrGmx2QoEm3730%2Fvmu5hTIfgAkCfhuVCbwchaSBYSnxdXLE9yKhEoTbDDlXTY%2BeRQDPkCL6ThVOUNQyumbwvU1QKN3ge%2Fdt%2Fa1%2FTM6qXS7yw8IWtbJ4KbSJLJOYvba1L%2F9slo%2FoV1hwltSDQq8RfIz2kgldW9zUtYEDhobqgL9kQkgMF8hg%2B%2FRvbqei4h1rqaKfT%2Bzwakio4Eu1OGgoU8YyfTBPwKpgST3YtLOnaP4W0eXSR8DUVPefDrZbWquSG5aRv0qZxbFrkId92wW6TK8zP0nTXLZxmIQgLWZsFYcw%2FoztFbxn9dyuyoGuqUYL9tKvDRl70UNqmwVdgFPU44LJ%2BrQWeHeeHBpZj%2Bvj1yhdQi0eTO9Cbn7lPgNSIqJq%2F7nsJhYFjc2GYu2V%2F4Is7YembzIN40sSzZ7iPHcX28qDvH1FE52jOs%2F6eKq2qBvOCOfyFe8Q71JtHoqty2GHFvevVt6n6DXARfHxPBR3w046iUrCxI8n0M%2BTTeOplKEZhHBeBTtv41Z0ICjooCDiFr7oyR%2Fn2IDdhJyfPdyIu6QLF7sd3%2FEJBTUifbJIhUUttA1iAam%2B%2BPa%2FFaZsMR8%2FHA3ezfu6C6hQm46d1HOU3pFpj5W8XYF6cXotczADrMHSAw7xL3a37f%2FdvSGdohIQjEQjSpMnPcfU3zF6R8H8ONU6DSIAXHxlinM95398yvaUfUqkkBR5I6nNPrEmLjX9yDtIeZvHv2r40vvSuA426aBxCrSSqtBs1MfqcA8kySdzuQOqztbQB4nu%2FdOO3wvshww8NWypwY6sgHh47QYIFIQott%2Bcl%2BYnnivYeoCMjEMWQiHVmI7Kllz5WfisUVh9bQ%2BHytIqwYUeEXK7%2BpaXlTPvnXMZkYqz8I2U%2FNYZ0qCRxIZPDLMsU7NrT%2BgIQ9iTEOzwaRrqkC4eYk87mckofMe3pF4kWsuS3goDy7UejRMFjs5T5lXyzOXEpW3n6cIwCMT0AC%2FtiVZKFUab4jDhffOsu96FnYbtTWyd0kBoGdnRC%2BfkOlXobi0wmTD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20230828T153150Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYVMMT74H5%2F20230828%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=1e8fde23889e78a4b3b009c6da53014d6b4074e4efdb0cd149bbc5bd1a95bdf4&hash=b54135dbe5476cfe069bf44d211091186409cecda54af41d19fab2da1f5a88a9&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0019995864902232&tid=spdf-3156d97b-e2f4-44c7-be1f-6fbd5e7ba0d6&sid=0e933ab042ce324436382667b931c01929d3gxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=0f155103040a5601575d56&rr=7fdd9a825c8c1849&cc=us">A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference</a>" in 1964, which said:</li><ul><li> "On a direct intuitive level, the high a priori probability assigned to a sequence with a short description corresponds to one possible interpretation of “Occam’s Razor."</li></ul><li>Marcus Hutter who developed the algorithm for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI">universal artificial intelligence</a>, wrote "<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0004001.pdf">A Theory of Universal Artificial Intelligence based on Algorithmic Complexity</a>" in 2000, which said:</li><ul><li>"We propose a theory which formally solves the problem of unknown goal and environment. It might be viewed as a unification of the ideas of universal induction, probabilistic planning and reinforcement learning or as a unification of sequential decision theory with algorithmic information theory. [...] This, together with general convergence theorems motivates us to believe that the constructed universal AI system is the best one in a sense to be clarified in the sequel, i.e. that it is the most intelligent environmental independent system possible."</li></ul><li>Russell Standish who derived postulates of quantum mechanics from a theory of observation wrote "<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0001020.pdf">Why Occam's Razor?</a>" in 2004, which said:</li><ul><li>"In this paper I show why, in an ensemble theory of the universe, we should be inhabiting one of the elements of that ensemble with least information content that satisfies the anthropic principle. This explains the effectiveness of aesthetic principles such as Occam’s razor in predicting usefulness of scientific theories."</li></ul><li>Markus Müller who derived laws of physics from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory">algorithmic information theory</a> wrote "<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826v5.pdf">Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory</a>" in 2020, which said:</li><ul><li>"Observers will, with high probability, see an external world that is governed by <i>simple</i>, <i>computable</i>, <i>probabilistic</i> laws."<br></li></ul></ul></div><div>All these papers provide a justification for why it is that the simplest explanation consistent with the observations is also the most likely probable theory to be correct. Until very recently, it was not known why Occam's Razor was so effective. But if we happen to inhabit an infinite ensemble of computationally/algorithmically generated worlds, (as an increasing amount of other evidence suggests), then there is a direct reason for this. It implies an a priori reason why the theory with the the shortest description, i.e., the least <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity">Kolmogorov complexity</a>, is more likely to be true than any theory with a greater Kolmogorov complexity.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Does it help me become a better person? I could accept it<br>
> from a pragmatic point of view, but it would be tool and probably not a<br>
> part of my reality.<br>
><br>
> I feel as I am clumsily grasping or trying to say something here, but<br>
> perhaps you can tease it out of me, or a good nights sleep might help me<br>
> find the right words.<br>
> <br>
> We use induction to develop theories, then deduction to determine consequences of theories. If we have a high confidence in our<br>
> theories then we should have a high (but not perfect) confidence in the predictions of those theories in cases we can't directly<br>
> confirm.<br>
> <br>
> Surely, when we test something directly and confirm it our confidence approaches 100%, but consider our confidence for something<br>
> we've never tested, such as our confidence that the theory of gravity would predict that a 1-ton diamond, if dropped would fall if<br>
> placed in Earth's gravitational field. We're confident in this prediction solely due to our confidence in the theory of gravity. I<br>
> think our confidence in the multiverse rests on similar grounds.<br>
<br>
I see and accept your point, but I do not feel as confident about the<br>
multiverse, as the result of a 1-ton diamond. It seems to me, that there<br>
is no clear consensus or proof of the matter. The point that information<br>
only travels one way in that scenario (see answer to Bill and the MWI<br>
article on wikipedia) makes a lot of sense to me. So the diamon scenario<br>
and the multiverse scenario are in my opinion different scenarios with<br>
different levels of confidence.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is a caveat to this "one way information travel": <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference#Quantum_interference">interference</a>. It is through interference that other parallel universes make their presence known to us. If it weren't for interference, we would have no reason to suspect these other universes are real. It is interference that is mysterious in the two-slit experiment, and it is interference that gives us useful results from quantum computers.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> Well, the problem is that this is a "could". So far it has not happened,<br>
> <br>
> That you or I can remember.<br>
<br>
True. ;)<br>
<br>
> and I have not heard from anyone who had it happen to them.<br>
> <br>
> The theory explains why we would not have evidence within this universe of others in other universes simulating us and copying us<br>
> there. The trip is one-way. So we can't consider this lack of evidence as evidence of absence.<br>
<br>
In that case it can never be verified, and since it will in that case<br>
not impact us in any way, I'd say that this is a weakness of that<br>
theory.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It can subjectively impact you. For example, if you find yourself mysteriously surviving many iterations of Shrodinger's cat experiment, where you play the role of the cat, then I consider that an impact that is directly relevant to you. In the same way, if you find after your death in this universe, you awaken in another universe where this life was a dream or a video game, I would also consider that an impact to you.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> So yes,<br>
> anything can happen, but so far I have not seen any proof of this<br>
> happening to me or anyone else. If there never can be a proof, then I<br>
> prefer to leave it at the very stimulating thought experiment level.<br>
> <br>
> The proof can only come if/when you find yourself in another universe. It is much like with quantum suicide: you can only experience<br>
> the proof for yourself, and can't share it.<br>
<br>
Relative to this world, and empirical proof á la science, that is a<br>
proof I am not willing to accept as proof.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>All evidence we have comes to us through our conscious experience. Physics can be understood as the science of observations: given past observations, what are the expected future ones?</div><div>But then what happens when we use physics to consider the predicted observations of a scientist undergoing Shrodinger's cat experiment with himself as the cat? What does physics predict for the future observations of a scientist that is killed (at least locally in this part of reality)? Here, for physics to provide an answer, we require a fully fleshed out ontology: we need to know answers to questions like:</div><div>- Is the universe spatially infinite?</div><div>- Is there an eternal succession of big bangs?</div><div>- Is there a quantum multiverse?</div><div>- Is it possible this experience is duplicated in a simulation elsewhere? Etc.</div><div>Physics will remain incomplete without answers to these questions, because without answering these questions, physics will fail to provide answers to the questions of what the scientist will experience, and physics is the science expected to provide answers concerning future expected observations. I think to say "physics can't, (or shouldn't try to), answer these questions." is to needlessly constrain physics. </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> True, it may do so, but my reasoning I think, remains the same.<br>
> <br>
> Well perhaps this is the evidence you're looking for. If we, say, discover a glider in the GoL universe and then copy it and paste it<br>
> into its own GoL space where it can enjoy gliding forever, then here is an example of "someone" whom underwent the procedure, so you<br>
> know it alcan and does happen for some entities. Now consider: what is the simulated universe is more complex and the entity we copy<br>
> into a simulation of our choosing is conscious?<br>
<br>
Could you expand a bit on this point?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Here are some examples of our exploration of the GoL universe: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE&t=75s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE&t=75s</a></div><div>Note there is no upper bound to the complexity of objects that can exist there, people have been able to build Turing machines inside them.</div><div><br></div><div>Imagine we found something in one of these very alien universes that was sentient, or even intelligent. We could then create a simulation of its world, copy it into that environment, and also create a communication portal so that scientists here could communicate with that being. From it's perspective, it might be sitting in its living room one moment, then suddenly find itself elsewhere, in a place it doesn't recognize. Our scientists might use avatars to appear within that environment to talk to it, or we might create a "window" via something like a TV screen in its virtual environment where it could look at it out into the computer lab where the scientists are gathered around. Computer simulate is a tool that lets us explore and create other realities, and this would be an example of it's ultimate capacity -- the ability to effectively travel to other universes and interact with their inhabitants.</div><div><br></div><div>For this reason, universes are never entirely causally isolated from one another, they can peer into other universes, extract information from them, and that information can effect the goings on in that universe. For example, the fact that I've written the word "glider" a name referring to an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(Conway%27s_Game_of_Life)">object that exists in another universe</a>, is a direct example of how another universe can have causal impacts on our universe. In the same way as we have learned about gliders, entities in another universe could learn about objects called "Daniel" and "Jason" who inhabit this universe. Upon discovering us, we could be copied into environments in their universes, we could then directly interact with those beings if they open a portal for communication.</div><div><br></div><div>Others have written about this concept, for example:</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>"The body and memory collection could be set in any simulated background environment the Omega Point wished: a simulated world indistinguishable from the long-extinct society and physical universe of the revived dead person; or even a world that never existed, but one as close as logically possible to the ideal fantasy world of the resurrected dead person. Furthermore all possible combinations of resurrected dead can be placed in the same simulation and allowed to interact. For example, the reader could be placed in a simulation with all of his or her ancestors and descendants."<br></div><div>-- Frank Tipler in “<a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-OMEGA-POINT-AS-ESCHATON%3A-ANSWERS-TO-QUESTIONS-Tipler/1881775bd39a90ed578f7a261a8fccc9eebd5237">The Omega Point as Eshaton</a>” (1989)</div><div><br></div><div>"When we die, the rules surely change. As our brains and bodies cease to function in the normal way, it takes greater and greater contrivances and coincidences to explain continuing consciousness by their operation. We lose our ties to physical reality, but, in the space of all possible worlds, that cannot be the end. Our consciousness continues to exist in some of those, and we will always find ourselves in worlds where we exist and never in ones where we don’t. The nature of the next simplest world that can host us, after we abandon physical law, I cannot guess."<br>-- Hans Moravec in “<a href="https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1998/SimConEx.98.html">Simulation, Consciousness, Existence</a>” (1998)<br></div><div><br></div><div>"An afterlife in a different simulation or at a different level of reality after death-in-the-simulation would be a real possibility. It is even conceivable that the simulators might reward or punish their simulated creatures based to how they behave, perhaps according to familiar moral or religious norms (a possibility that gains a little bit of credibility from the possibility that the simulators might be the descendants of earlier humans who recognized these norms)."<br>-- Nick Bostrom in “<a href="https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html">The Simulation Argument FAQ</a>” (2008)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Best regards, <br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Jason<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Hello Stuart,<br>
> ><br>
> > Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting<br>
> > edge physics.<br>
> ><br>
> > You say that<br>
> ><br>
> > that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are already immortal. You<br>
> > don't need to<br>
> > copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, you strewn about<br>
> > the<br>
> > multiverse.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by proof or is itone of many<br>
> > interpretations of<br>
> > current theories?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability there's only one<br>
> universe<br>
> > (with one kind of<br>
> > physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122.<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > This is as close to proof as anything science can provide.<br>
> ><br>
> > Jason <br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > <br>
> ><br>
> > Best regards, Daniel<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Stuart LaForge<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, so I think we should<br>
> > really<br>
> > understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please explain further?<br>
> ><br>
> > Could you also please explain the comment about continuity and not-discontinuity not<br>
> being<br>
> > the<br>
> > same thing?<br>
> ><br>
> > Ben<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> extropy-chat mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>