<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 5:55 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">Good evening Jason,<br>
<br>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:<br>
<br>
> > That is quite a big "if" in my world.<br>
> ><br>
> > It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we have for it. I have put together a list of<br>
> confirming evidence<br>
> > here:<br>
> > <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence</a><br>
><br>
> Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any<br>
> verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and<br>
> I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to<br>
> test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm<br>
> or deny them.<br>
> <br>
> The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a theory which we can verify with our senses or observations<br>
> (or indirectly by observing results of a measurement apparatus).<br>
> <br>
> Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our<br>
> confidence in the truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation would falsify the theory.<br>
> <br>
> Agree so far?<br>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
> Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information<br>
> theory:<br>
> <br>
> 1. The universe follows simple stable laws<br>
> 2. The laws are probabilistic in nature<br>
> 3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in time<br>
> <br>
> None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe with no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't<br>
> probabilistic in nature, or laws that aren't easily described.<br>
> <br>
> We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms these predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of<br>
> gravity then looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that inverse square law of gravitational attraction.<br>
> <br>
> So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not empirical.<br>
<br>
Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this<br>
life or this world, confirm, </blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What I am saying is we can confirm it by looking at properties of our own universe. It's like this:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1. A theory predicts two things: A and B</div><div dir="auto">2. We observe A, thereby finding some observational confirmation of this theory.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In this case, "A" is the universe being quantum mechanical. It didn't have to be. And it is quite strange and unexpected that the universe should be quantum mechanical. No other theory we know of can explain why the universe should be quantum mechanical.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We have looked at the universe and found it to be quantum mechanical. Therefore we have some confidence (from observational evidence) that this theory is true.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Now this theory also predicts B, which is the prediction of infinite other universes beyond this one. We are stuck in the universe and so our inability to observe these other universes is not evidence of their absence. We thus have neither observationally confirmed nor refuted the prediction of B. Our confidence in the theory is unperturbed.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%.</div><div dir="auto">Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%.</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">I do not see how they can ever be proven.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How do we know earth isn't hollow, or that the big bang happened? Noone has ever been in a position to see these things. Our confidence in these facts is indirect and based on theory. Do you not accept them for that reason? Or if you are confident in these facts, on what basis?</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">
It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that<br>
by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way,<br>
its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by<br>
definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this<br>
world.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Our inability to observe God does not make us powerless to apply theory and rationality to discover properties of God. For example, you might use an observation of something in this universe, say the existence of evil, to reason that if God exists he is either unwilling or unable to prevent that evil from existing in this universe.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is similar with multiverse theories. We can look at aspects of things within our own universe and reason about what theories could explain the properties or aspects we observe of or in our universe. It just happens that the simplest (and perhaps only?) theory that can explain why our universe is quantum mechanical is an infinite ensemble theory.</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>
There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that<br>
difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather<br>
uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see<br>
how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will<br>
change its mind, and so would I.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without assuming the reality of the wave function and it's superposed states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in any branch can observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse.</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 do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will<br>
change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the<br>
finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;)<br>
<br>
> I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are<br>
> theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit<br>
> experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof.<br>
><br>
> Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd<br>
> rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump<br>
> in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some<br>
> writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified.<br>
> <br>
> You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal<br>
> places).<br>
<br>
Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI,<br>
superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories<br>
that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are<br>
still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Many worlds is QM. QM is many worlds. MW is not an interpretation because it is strictly the idea that the universe always follows the laws of QM without exception.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">To say MW is an interpretation of QM would be like saying the belief that the universe always follows general relativity is an interpretation of general relativity.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">On the other hand, CI is not QM, it says the universe stops obeying QM at certain times under certain conditions (wave function collapse), and so it is straight-forwardly a rejection of QM. It's not an interpretation of QM, it's an altogether different theory.</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>
As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to<br>
be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that<br>
they are currently anything else but theories.<br>
<br>
> > Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is right.<br>
> ><br>
> > Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a trillion odds)<br>
> > Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations?<br>
><br>
> No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an<br>
> extremely lucky guy. ;)<br>
> <br>
> Let's say there are two theories for what is happening:<br>
> <br>
> 1. You are very lucky<br>
> 2. The game is rigged<br>
> <br>
> Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row.<br>
> <br>
> Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in your assessment?<br>
<br>
Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does<br>
increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick<br>
apart the game.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Well we can never prove anything. But I'm willing to bet that when the second tower was hit on 9/11 you concluded that you had observed an intentional act rather than two accidents. We use probability in our reasoning like this all the time in our everyday lives. Quantum suicide just asks you to apply that same kind of reasoning.</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"></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></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>
> > Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death do not<br>
> > have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no information<br>
> > travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read (religious<br>
> > relatives aside).<br>
> ><br>
> > Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things occurring outside this world?<br>
><br>
> Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude<br>
> contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof<br>
> related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert<br>
> landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of<br>
> interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this<br>
> world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and<br>
> philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage,<br>
> but that does not mean I believe in them.<br>
> <br>
> It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If in the future you are given a choice to receive a neural<br>
> prosthesis (say to restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind because you are agnostic on a theory of<br>
> consciousness, or will you make a best guess given available information?<br>
<br>
Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me<br>
remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and<br>
the outcome related to acting or not acting.<br>
<br>
When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable<br>
being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength<br>
in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to<br>
criticize myself.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Good point.</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>
> > Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this is the<br>
> > nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most likely<br>
> > forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize it 100%.<br>
> ><br>
> > This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer running some program for which we don't know whether<br>
> or not it<br>
> > will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical problem how much power this computer will ultimately<br>
> draw. But this<br>
> > physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and there will always remain problems for which<br>
> currently known<br>
> > mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs.<br>
><br>
> I agree.<br>
><br>
> > But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand<br>
> the scope of<br>
> > questions that are answerable.<br>
><br>
> I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons,<br>
> developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at<br>
> the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to<br>
> theories which cannot be proven.<br>
> <br>
> Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the theory of gravity or evolution.<br>
<br>
I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way,<br>
way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to<br>
committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on<br>
results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Not unreasonable.</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>
> They are an important tool, they can<br>
> serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and<br>
> will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained.<br>
> <br>
> I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where<br>
> nothing we believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some theories are far more likely to be correct than<br>
> others.<br>
<br>
What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing<br>
proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)?<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's a good question. Since I believe there is only one mind then in a certain sense I do believe I am arguing with myself. Regardless, I find such discussion a fruitful exercise, whoever you may be.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Since I also believe in an infinite and comprehensive reality, there is further not one version of you, but an infinite number (and from my limited perspective) there are many distinct possibilities that remain compatible with everything I presently know. (You could be someone outside this simulation, an alien, a delusion, or exactly who you say 😉). You are in fact all of these, in varying fractions across the multiverse, just as I have analogous existences as all of these possibilities to you from your perspective.</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 read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it.<br>
<br>
As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others<br>
(pink unicorns).<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What basis do you use to compare the relative likelihood of two theories for which we have no observational evidence? Is it innate complexity of the theory? (I.e. do you use the heuristic of simplicity when you judge theories?) If so, what is the basis of this?</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>
> > Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in our<br>
> > world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are<br>
> > concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can do to<br>
> > escape their medium of existence by themselves.<br>
> ><br>
> > You are defining their existence in terms of their material construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and<br>
> say any<br>
> > identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and the material substrate is unimportant) then<br>
> external simulation<br>
><br>
> I do, since we live in a material universe.<br>
> <br>
> How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God?<br>
<br>
Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far,<br>
then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic<br>
reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I<br>
exist, and that we do live in a material universe.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But everything you know is compatible with our existence in idealism (including all our assumed observations of matter). Further, physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We have two metaphysical theories:</div><div dir="auto">Materialism and Idealism </div><div dir="auto">How do you decide between them, without using metaphysics, reasoning, etc. (When observational evidence doesn't work).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You either have to be agnostic on materialism/idealism, or you must accept that whatever methods you use to decide between them, are applicable to questions like do other universes exist. It would be inconsistent, I think to use metaphysics to answer one question but say metaphysics is invalid when I deciding the other question.</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 yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything,<br>
including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we<br>
end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so<br>
I think I'll refrain from going there. ;)<br>
<br>
> Therefore I do not think it<br>
> makes sense to relax this constraint.<br>
> <br>
> Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind, (which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.)<br>
> Especially given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position.<br>
<br>
I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other<br>
discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some<br>
sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position<br>
that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around<br>
mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Glad to hear it.</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>
> Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that<br>
> in our other thread about ID and consciousness.<br>
> <br>
> The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my opinion.<br>
<br>
Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory.<br>
<br>
> > What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes<br>
> entirely<br>
> > physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or can happen in this universe?<br>
><br>
> I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns<br>
> and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical<br>
> concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas.<br>
> <br>
> I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism.<br>
> <br>
> I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It transcends us, and any attempt to define it.<br>
> <br>
> This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical<br>
> system we come up with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then, where does truth come from, if not us or<br>
> our axiomatic systems?<br>
<br>
When something corresponds with a state in the world?</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Do the digits of Pi go on forever,?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is a mathematical truth without correspondence to any physical fact of our finite universe of 10^120 bits.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So if Pi has digits that go on forever, they can't have any physical correspondence, and they cannot exist in our universe. Whe e then, do they know exist?</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"> I'm no expert, but<br>
I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we<br>
interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the<br>
concept is meaningless.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this universe. This follows from the fact that there are systems of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable universe.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Just consider something simple, like the factors of zero. Are there an infinite number of them? No person can comprehend them all of them, which suggests a finite number of factors. So then, how many factors does zero have (if the truth of a number being a factor of of zero requires human processing)?</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>
> Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes:<br>
> <br>
> "[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own<br>
> creation; for the creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they can’t have any others except those he has<br>
> given to them. So this alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least something in them) exist<br>
> objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of Platonism<br>
> or ‘realism’ as to the mathematical objects."<br>
<br>
Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the<br>
creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not<br>
convinced by his line of reasoning.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">He's not, in my interpretation, speaking of God here, but anything created or invented. Think of an author of nonfiction story and the properties of the characters in his story, for example.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But notably, this isn't the case with mathematics. Even if a human creates some definition or description of numbers, it cannot be used to represent or determine everything true about the numbers. The numbers then (he reasons) cannot be our creations.</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>
> Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness.<br>
> It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that<br>
> individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I<br>
> do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;)<br>
> <br>
> It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything.<br>
<br>
Very true. ;)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Coincidentally there was a blue moon the day I wrote that. 😉</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </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>
Best regards, <br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Jason <br>
> <br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Daniel<br>
> <br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Jason <br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Best regards,<br>
> > Daniel<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Jason<br>
> > > <br>
> > ><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<br>
> <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>><br>
> > 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<br>
> already<br>
> > > immortal. You<br>
> > > > > don't need to<br>
> > > > > copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not infinite<br>
> numbers of,<br>
> > you<br>
> > > strewn about<br>
> > > > > the<br>
> > > > > multiverse.<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by<br>
> proof or<br>
> > is itone<br>
> > > of many<br>
> > > > > interpretations of<br>
> > > > > current theories?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability<br>
> there's<br>
> > only<br>
> > > 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 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,<br>
> so I<br>
> > think we<br>
> > > should<br>
> > > > > really<br>
> > > > > understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please<br>
> explain<br>
> > further?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Could you also please explain the comment about continuity and<br>
> > not-discontinuity<br>
> > > 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" 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>
> > > > ><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>
> > > > ><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>
> > > > ><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>
> > > ><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>
> > ><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>
> ><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>
> <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>