<div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:44 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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"><br>
<br>
Ergo... choose your wife with care! ;)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Good advice.</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>
> Then I don't think our positions are too far off. I don't ask for any belief <br>
> or acceptance of some idea as some final truth. Rather,<br>
> I see all ideas as having some probability/confidence we might ascribe to <br>
> them. And even in such cases when an idea happens to be<br>
> true we can never know it is true.<br>
<br>
Yes, it does seem like we're not that far apart. One difference is our<br>
subjective probabilities, and the other is the realism/anti-realism<br>
aspect, although, I don't have a fixed position and am somewhere between<br>
the two anti-realism positions. Probably an interesting topic for<br>
another thread to try and decide on a position there. =)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Isn't anti-realism a kind of idealism? And previously you seemed to have a strong objection to idealism.</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><br>
> I think a nice way to think about theories (especially if one comes from a <br>
> computing background) is to think of them as functions.<br>
> A prediction then, is equivalent to evaluating a function for some situation <br>
> x: y = F(x).<br>
> Then "y", the output of the function, is what we might call that function's <br>
> "prediction".<br>
> The only thing we have assumed (or postulated) here is the validity of F() <br>
> for the situation x.<br>
<br>
Well, if we decouple it from the real world, and treat it as a function<br>
(pure mathematics) then yes, I think that's valid. If a part of the<br>
function is verification, then sometimes the function in this reality<br>
doesn't compute. Or do I misunderstand you?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not sure how to parse that exactly, but I will try to restate it in another way.</div><div>We assume theories and their validity for certain domains.</div><div>A theory is a mathematical abstraction, not unlike a particular function in mathematics.</div><div>We test theories by using them to make predictions (but plugging an input 'x' into the function, and seeing it's output 'y', which is what that theory says we should see), and then we make an observation of reality and compare that observation O with the prediction y. If they disagree, either there was some experimental error, or the theory is invalid. If they agree, then the theory has passed a test, and we can increase our confidence in the validity of the theory.</div><div><br></div><div>We can always compute the function for any given "x" value to get a prediction. However, not all x values are practical or possible to test. For instance, testing whether a 1-ton diamond falls with the same acceleration predicted by the theory. Or testing whether antimatter falls. It is too difficult/expensive to gather enough antimatter and contain it reliably, to perform this "drop test." In other cases, the "y" is an observation we are unable to make, so we cannot compare the prediction of a theory to reality. For example, observing the insides of black holes (and making it back out again to report what was seen), or observing the electron go through the other slit (that the person in the other branch would have seen).</div><div><br></div><div>Any theory you might imagine, even something universally accepted like "F = ma" will have limitations on our ability to test (for example, testing this theory for masses greater than the mass of the observable universe is impossible in principle), and it remains uncertain whether this function has any validity for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">negative</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">imaginary masses</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>So this is why I don't find it especially troubling when a theory has portions of its domain or range that are unverifiable. As long as there are portions of its range that do intersect with observable reality, then we can establish some confidence in the validity of the theory (even though there may always remain an infinite number of untested or untestable predictions of that theory).</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>> Consider the plight of a brilliant fish scientist confined to a small pond. <br>
> This fish scientist observes rocks fall, and bubbles<br>
> rise, he also makes precise measurements of the surface of the water on the <br>
> pond and finds it to be curved ever so slightly, as if it<br>
> is a partial surface of a sphere. The brilliant fish scientist then develops <br>
> a theory of gravity, based on the idea that everything<br>
> is pulled towards some unseen center. The fish scientist drops two rocks on <br>
> opposite sides of the pond, and finds their paths are not<br>
> completely parallel, a further confirmation of this theory that everything is <br>
> pulled towards a center. Furthermore, the difference in<br>
> angle aligns with the curvature of the pond's surface, adding further <br>
> credence to his theory (the direction rocks fall is always 90<br>
> degrees from the angle of the pond's surface at the point the rock is dropped <br>
> from).<br>
> The brilliant fish scientist then makes a bold prediction: he infers that <br>
> reality must be much larger than the small pond he is<br>
> confined to: the curvature of the pond's surface suggests he lives on a <br>
> sphere with a diameter of 40,000 kilometers. The fellow fish,<br>
> however, think he is a bit silly for making such a prediction. Though the <br>
> fellow fish accept his theory of gravity and the<br>
> measurements of the pond surface's curvature, they think it is unwarranted to <br>
> discuss anything that neither he nor they could ever<br>
> confirm. The fish scientist argues, if his theory is true, it explains <br>
> everything: why rocks dropped from different points don't fall<br>
> in a parallel direction, why the pond's surface is not completely flat, but <br>
> curved, and why rocks fall and bubbles rise. Yes, it<br>
> implies the existence of things we can't directly see, but such unseen things <br>
> are necessary for his theory to work at all (things<br>
> would fall over, or collapse inward, if there wasn't already something <br>
> underneath us and to the side of us).<br>
> <br>
> I think this is where we are. Our best theories necessarily include things <br>
> beyond our capacity to see, because they are so powerful.<br>
> Note that general relativity makes an analogous prediction regarding the <br>
> curvature of space itself. We have used satellites to<br>
> measure the curvature of space, and found its curvature to be less than 0.4%. <br>
> This implies (assuming general relativity) that space<br>
> must go on at least 250X further than what we can see in every direction. So <br>
> that the volume of the space we can see is no more than<br>
> 1 / 250^3 (or 1/17,576,000th) of what is out there. What do you say about <br>
> the reality of all this other space? It is implied by our<br>
> theory (and by our measurement of the curvature of space). But we will never <br>
> be able to travel out beyond our present confines to see<br>
> this other space. It is over the cosmological horizon. We are, like those <br>
> fish, trapped in our own local backwater. Even if a fish<br>
> jumps out of the pond to try to see a little further, it still can't see <br>
> beyond the horizon.<br>
<br>
I do agree, with the difference that the prediction is about our<br>
space, which we theoretically could explore, as physical beings moving<br>
through space. So my probability of belief does assign some value to it<br>
and that value is higher than for predictions generating ideas outside<br>
of our universe.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But those places beyond the horizon *are outside* our universe, because space is expanding faster than light, these places will forever be causally disconnected and isolated from our local observable universe. We can never affect them, nor they ever affect us. They are causally empty/impotent predictions of relativity.</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>
> <br>
> Can a true agnostic (who neither accepts or rejects any theory) even do <br>
> physics? If you give a theory-agnostic physicist a physics<br>
> problem to solve, how does he or she decide which theory to use to make a <br>
> prediction? If the theory-agnostic physicist chooses a<br>
> particular theory to use to make a prediction, is that not a form of <br>
> acceptance of the theory? It seems to me the true agnostic must<br>
> refuse to take any action or make any prediction.<br>
<br>
I think that depends on what the agnostic believes the theory to be. If<br>
it is a tool with the purpose of making predictions and navigating our<br>
world, the agnostic can freely use any tools, since the tool is not the<br>
world itself. It's just a thought construct that takes input and<br>
generates output.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>But what motivates the agnostic to believe a theory will work, unless that theory describes something that is real?</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"> If that output can be verfied, it is elevated to<br>
something close to knowledge and stops being belief. Those theories do<br>
yield extrapolations when they are interpreted in certain ways, that go<br>
beyond our world, and the true agnostic ignores those extrapolations. HE<br>
might engage in them in order to try and prove them, but if they are per<br>
definition outside our world, I do not think he would waste his time and<br>
let nobler creatures fight those battles.<br>
<br>
What is interesting though is the decision to ignore the "extra" for the<br>
time being, or assign it some probability. But then the question is, if<br>
it is meaningful to play with probabilities when it comes to things<br>
outside our world or if that only risks trapping you in the theory.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see any risk of becoming trapped in a theory. A theory we can accept as a tentative description of reality (which may be true or false).</div><div>We can ask what a theory (which may be widely regarded as true) says about a larger reality (which we may or may not be in a position to see). At least, I see no reason we should not be able to ask these things of otherwise well-tested, well-accepted, well-confirmed, theories. General Relativity fits this category, and I see no reason we can't ask this theory what it says about the minimum size of the universe compared to our observable part of the universe.</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>
"Sometimes it's hard to agnostic", to paraphrase a famous line from a<br>
country song. Hmm, or was it "Stay in your world"...? ;)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can see that.</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>
> or 4, letting the equations do the talking without<br>
> human interpretations.<br>
> <br>
> I don't think that's realistic. You can confine yourself entirely to the <br>
> equations, but you still get numerical answers that tell you<br>
> reality is bigger than what we see.<br>
> For example regarding the mathematics of cosmic inflation. You could ask at <br>
> what time period t, does the math predict that inflation<br>
> stops?<br>
> The equations would provide you a strictly mathematical answer: never<br>
> You could also ask for a numerical prediction for the number of big bangs <br>
> that inflation will produce once inflation is initiated.<br>
> And again you get a numerical answer: infinite.<br>
<br>
Well, if it is not testable or verifiable, a restatement could be, if I<br>
input this value in this equation I get this answer. But yes, I think it<br>
is stretching it a bit. We are people and understand our world through<br>
our senses, thoughts and language, so doing all the science and expect<br>
us to not do anything with the result does seem a bit inhuman.<br>
<br>
> It's not that scientists woke up one day and wanted to find many universes, <br>
> it's that so many of our best theories directly imply<br>
> them, from a simple reading of the math. A simple reading of relativity (plus <br>
> a measurement of the curvature of space) implies space<br>
> is at least tens of millions of times greater than all of the trillions upon <br>
> trillions of cubic light years we can see. Our best<br>
> theory for explaining the big bang suggests the process that generated it <br>
> continues forever, perpetually causing new big bangs for<br>
> all time. The math of QM necessitates the introduction of parallel histories, <br>
> which interact with ours to cause interference effects<br>
> which we see in everyday experiments. These extra histories are there, in the <br>
> equations (you can't apply the equations without<br>
> including them).<br>
<br>
Well, I think we've been done this route before.<br>
<br>
> I would like to draw a line between what, within<br>
> a theory, we can test and prove/disprove, and beyond that line, we<br>
> statements of the theory we cannot currently (or never) test or prove. <br>
> I<br>
> think the tools and concepts on each side of this line, should be<br>
> treated differently. I do not, however, think that we should stop<br>
> theorizing. I think the utility of these extrapolations is in<br>
> inspiration and motivation, that makes us push further. I agree that <br>
> too<br>
> much or too strict agnosticism could lead to us stopping to expand the<br>
> horizons. So I agree with some, but I would still like to uphold a<br>
> difference of the content of theories between provable and<br>
> extrapolation, but both have their value and their use.<br>
> <br>
> There are three categories of <br>
> predictions: <a href="https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Untitled-presentation-4.jpg</a><br>
> 1. Tested<br>
> 2. Testable but not yet tested<br>
> 3. Not testable<br>
> #1 of course deserves our greatest credence, but I see no reason to <br>
> distinguish credence between #2 and #3.<br>
<br>
I think 3 is definitely below 2, since it loses any grounding in the<br>
world, and is of no use.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see utility as having any bearing on veracity.</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"> The trick is to distinguish between 2 and 3 and<br>
that is not always so clear, so that is why I am not prepared to dismiss<br>
any interpretation of QM. What sounds impossible today might be possible<br>
tomorrow, however, interpretations that end up as 3 will always be less<br>
credible to me than 2.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The reason I see them as equally credible, is that their acceptance comes down entirely to one's confidence in the truth of the theory itself.</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>
By putting too much emphasis on 3 on the other hand, can distract us and<br>
make us waste our time from other work which clearly falls into 1 and 2.<br>
But, that assumes we can make that judgment.<br>
<br>> Perhaps <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban</a> ?<br>
<br>
Ahh.. the language of spock? ;) .u'u (repentance) somehow I can see the<br>
logicin that!<br>
<br><br><br>
> I think there are so many different subfields and specialties that everything <br>
> is quite fragmented and compartmentalized, such that<br>
> even if one did discover a great unifying theory today, there's a good chance <br>
> it would be completely glossed over because no one else<br>
> has the right combination of specialties to understand it, assuming that they <br>
> even heard about it and read it. Consider that there<br>
> are over 10,000 scientific publications every day. How many can any person <br>
> read in a day?<br>
<br>
Sigh, how sad that would be. The truth having existed for decades or<br>
centuries, and no one having the knowledge to understand it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes..</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>
><br>
> > No one knew why nature is quantum mechanical. It appeared one of the <br>
> most profound mysteries, it tormented many of the<br>
> founders of<br>
> > the theory. Wheeler spent his whole life trying in vain to understand <br>
> why it was this way.<br>
><br>
> That's one guy who didn't give up due to lack of understanding. A whole<br>
> life!!<br>
> <br>
> Yes, he continued working well into his 80s. There's a great book which <br>
> covers much of Wheeler's life, called Trespassing on<br>
> Einstein's Lawn.<br>
> <br>
> "Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling, that <br>
> when—in a decade, a century, or a millennium—we grasp<br>
> it, we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How <br>
> could we have been so stupid for so long?"<br>
> -- John Archibald Wheeler in “How Come the Quantum?” (1986)<br>
<br>
Wouldn't surprise me at all!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is in fact the case. Elementary arithmetic can serve as a fundamental physical theory of everything:</div><div><a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Conclusions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Conclusions</a><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>
> <br>
> "I have never been able to let go of questions like: How come existence? How <br>
> come the quantum?"<br>
> -- John Archibald Wheeler in “Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam” (1998)<br>
> <br>
> Note Wheeler was 87 in 1998.<br>
> <br>
><br>
> > And only very recently have a few researchers offered a plausible <br>
> answer. The one thing their explanations share in<br>
> common is they<br>
> > are ultimate ensemble-type theories (an infinite comprehensive <br>
> reality where all possibilities exist). As it turns out,<br>
> if you start<br>
> > with such an assumption, then you can answer why the universe is <br>
> quantum mechanical.<br>
><br>
> But it is just an assumption?<br>
> <br>
> All theories are assumed. <br>
<br>
Very much true. But it is important not to lose sight of that fact I<br>
think.<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>
> And can the assumption ever be proven?<br>
> <br>
> Theories are never proven, at best they persist in states of being "not yet <br>
> refuted". But our confidence in theories increases as<br>
> they survive more and more tests which have the capacity to refute them.<br>
<br>
And that could be another mega-thread about truth. Don't you think? =)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>On "truth"? Perhaps. There would need to be some difference in opinion though, otherwise there wouldn't be much fuel for conversation.</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>> Such theories touch on things outside our reality, but they also touch on <br>
> things inside our reality. For instance, they make<br>
> predictions about things we can observe and test (e.g. predictions about the <br>
> nature of reality or properties of physical laws). It is<br>
> for this reason that they are falsifiable (there are tests they can undergo <br>
> which have the capacity to refute them), and having<br>
> passed such tests, we can have a non-zero confidence in them.<br>
<br>
Possibly, but definitely not the same level of confidence as what can be<br>
proven. See above about the agnostics dilemma.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree, the #1 (tested predictions) will always have a higher confidence than #2 (untested) or #3 (untestable) predictions.</div><div>A collection of #1 tested predictions bolsters a theory, and our confidence in a theory is what provides any ground for belief in #2 or #3.</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>> Empirical evidence concerns what is observable. I would agree, that if for <br>
> example, there was a theory that made no observable<br>
> predictions whatsoever, it would not be a scientific theory and would not be <br>
> worthy of our time to discuss. But this is not the case<br>
> concerning any of these theories (QM, GR, Inflation, etc.) They all make <br>
> predictions we can, and have, tested empirically.<br>
<br>
Yes, but as you say, the empirical is a non-problem. When<br>
interpretations try and "cross over", that's when the fun starts.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I think we need an agreed upon definition for "interpretation".</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">
<br><br>
> Can you explain this part more fully, I don't understand. In both cases, we <br>
> exist in a time when it hasn't yet been tested. What then<br>
> makes us more confident in the prediction? I don't see why the fact that we <br>
> could test it is of any relevance in the time before we<br>
> test it.<br>
<br>
The difference is (and I think something got lost in the text, but I'm<br>
not sure) that if theories make predictions about our world, they belong<br>
to 1 and 2 above, and if they make predictions in category nr 3, they<br>
are just idle speculation. Therefore confidence in theories that help us<br>
navigate this world </blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think there is some confusion here.</div><div><br></div><div>All theories concern and make predictions that can be tested, otherwise they wouldn't be scientific theories in the first place.</div><div>But all (or almost all) theories, also make predictions about things that cannot be tested (for reasons of practicality or principle).</div><div><br></div><div>I still see no reason one should have to hold a #2 prediction to be more likely to be true then a #3 prediction, when it's the same theory that predicts both.</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">can be higher than extrapolations and<br>
interpretations about possible worlds we can never reach.<br>
<br><br>
> I've heard arguments that MW doesn't add anything to the QM equations,<br>
> and thus is an interpretation and not a new theory.<br>
> <br>
> In that sense it could be called an interpretation (as it adds nothing new to <br>
> the theory that isn't already there).<br>
<br>
Maybe this is an additional point of confusion and difference? The<br>
status of theory vs interpretation?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Let me make an attempt at definitions:</div><div><br></div><div>1. <b>Theory</b>: A framework (usually mathematical) for making predictions concerning future observations, given an initial starting state or configuration.</div><div><br></div><div>2. <b>Interpretation</b>: A particular way of understanding, explaining, or conceptualizing the underlying pure mathematics of a theory.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Do these seem good to you? Do you have any suggested changes or improvements?</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>
> In the sense that I say it is not an interpretation, I do so in a different <br>
> sense, because it is just an acceptance that the<br>
> underlying equations are true. To me, calling it an interpretation is then a <br>
> bit misleading, as we wouldn't call belief that "F = ma"<br>
> an interpretation of momentum.<br>
<br>
To give you another example "In fact, the only claim made by this<br>
interpretation is that there is no collapse of the wavefunction. There<br>
is just a universal wavefunction that evolves unitarily. The rest is for<br>
future physicists and philosophers to try to understand".<br>
<br>
(<a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/653331/how-real-are-the-worlds-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/653331/how-real-are-the-worlds-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation</a>)<br>
<br>
I tried to find the text where the author did not like the fact that it<br>
is interpretation and not theory but couldn't find it. The quote above<br>
kind of touches on the spirit of that text at least.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I think in that sense, neither CI, nor MWI are interpretations. They are, properly speaking, different theories. Where MW is the conventionally accepted math of existing QM, and Copenhagen is some other (not yet defined) mathematics that describes when/how the Shrodinger equation stops being followed.</div><div><br></div><div>Then, the things that you might call "interpretations" would relate to things like "Is the wave function physically real or just some non-real mathematical abstraction". They are two different ways of interpreting the same equation, which have no mathematical difference, and are only different on account of the different language and words we surround those mathematical entities with.</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>
> It is also listed<br>
> under interpretations, and to me, it seems like an interpretation among<br>
> many that theorize and try to explain how the qm equations work.<br>
> <br>
> The existence of many histories is predicted by the equations (it's not the <br>
> starting assumption). The parallel histories exist all<br>
> the same in CI. CI just adds the assumption that all but one suddenly <br>
> disappear when an observer looks at the system. Of course, this<br>
> means that before any observers were born in this universe, both CI and MW <br>
> agree on the existence of many parallel histories.<br>
> <br>
> <br><br></blockquote><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, here I agree based on how I understand CI vs MWI. If I understand<br>
> you correctly CI needs some adjustment of the equation right, which MWI<br>
> does not need? Please correct me here. So CI according to what I said<br>
> (or read) above, would perhaps move closer to becoming an additional<br>
> theory since it modifies or adjusts the equation? I'm on deep water<br>
> here, so take it with a grain of salt.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> You're correct. CI needs to describe measurement. That is, what qualifies as <br>
> a measurement, and why does it lead to a deviation from<br>
> Schrodinger's equation (as happens under it's hypothesized "collapse of the <br>
> wave function"). If fleshed out, this would be a<br>
> different theory from QM without collapse. But as it is, even proponents of <br>
> CI disagree about when collapse happens. It used to be<br>
> thought any measurement would do it, but the the quantum eraser experiment <br>
> shows can't be our measurement that does it, so perhaps<br>
> our knowledge (or our consciousness) of the result triggers it. In saying our <br>
> consciousness causes collapse, it has tied our progress<br>
> in the measurement problem to the question of what consciousness is. And this <br>
> is why the only known experimental test to disprove<br>
> collapse as objectively real requires a conscious observer whom we are able <br>
> to quantum erase their memory.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> > measurement which would say when the universe stops obeying QM during <br>
> wave function collapse. But no advocate of CI,<br>
> other than<br>
> > perhaps Roger Penrose, has suggested what this alternate math would <br>
> be. If advocates of CI did propose alternate<br>
> mathematical<br>
><br>
> Give them time! ;)<br>
> <br>
> They've had 100 years. 😉<br>
<br>
Come on, what about 100 more? ;)<br>
<br>
> <br>
><br>
> > descriptions for their theory, it would be clear that MW and <br>
> Copenhagen are different theories. CI refuses to make such<br>
> > specifications which keeps the waters muddied, and maintains the <br>
> illusion that no possible test can be done to<br>
> distinguish between<br>
> > them.<br>
><br>
> Refuses to make such specifications... yet. ;) Another justification <br>
> for<br>
> my agnosticism is that we've not reached the finish line and many <br>
> things<br>
> and geniuses could come and go. Sadly, as you said in the example of<br>
> heliocentrism, it can take 100s of years. =(<br>
> <br>
> But the thing is, ever since Everett we have had a solution to the <br>
> measurement problem. He showed why we would have the appearance of<br>
> wave function collapse even if the wave function never collapsed. Ever since <br>
> they time, I think it's become a mind of fools errand to<br>
> try to explain it as a real phenomenon (when we can show how without assuming <br>
> it, we can explain it's appearance).<br>
> The situation is a bit like trying to find some new unseen force that kept <br>
> the moon in the sky, well after Newton's theory of gravity<br>
> and inertia provided us a perfect explanation for what keeps it there.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
><br></blockquote><div><br></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">
> Since we live "in time" I find that proposition easier to swallow, than<br>
> universes completely beyond this one. So my degree of belief is higher<br>
> in points in time, partly supported by my human experience.<br>
> <br>
> I think there the right framing, in terms of different degrees of confidence.<br>
> <br>
> For instance, I might be 99% confident in the existence of past and future <br>
> points in time, but 95% confident in the many histories of<br>
> QM.<br>
<br>
Makes sense. And in my case, since I like to stick to the pragmatically<br>
material, at the moment my confidence in MWI and other similar<br>
interpretations is very low, just as it is when it comes to the bearded<br>
man in the sky.<br>
<br>
Do I say 0%? Probably not, but how close to 0 is 0? ;) But at the same<br>
time I am reluctant to add probabilities to states and things out of<br>
this world, and I feel much better saying we don't know.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To me, we have two theories:</div><div>One can explain quantum computers, the other cannot.</div><div>And we now have quantum computers.</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>
> You only get the handwaving "we don't know" from the interpretations that <br>
> deny the reality of these parallel states. But in denying<br>
> the reality of the intermediate parallel states it becomes impossible to <br>
> explain the correct answer existing in final state.<br>
> <br>
> To seal the deal, ask what happens when we run a brain simulation on a <br>
> quantum computer, initialized so it perceives many different<br>
> inputs. Does this not realize many parallel conscious states?<br>
<br>
We don't know. Let's run a brain simulation and see how it goes.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>We know what the equations of QM say, and all interpretations say the same thing:</div><div>We get a massive superposition of, let's say, billions of simultaneous simulations of the brain, each experiencing a different input.</div><div><ul><li>CI says: while all these billions of brain simulations exist and were simulated, once we interact with the quantum computer all but 1 disappears. (but it does not deny that they billions of separate brain computations *did* exist)</li><li>MW says: while all these billions of brain simulations exist and were simulated, once we interact with the quantum computer, we entangle our state with the superposition and become superposed ourself, such that we get a corresponding copy of ourself corresponding to each of the billions of individual simulated brain states.</li></ul></div><div>There is no mystery, question, or disagreement between MW and CI until such time that we measure/interact with the quantum computer, because before such time, there is no wave function collapse.</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"> What<br>
you say is hand waving, I interpret as many view points, the agnostic<br>
one being one of them like the quote above.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you think any part of what I said is hand waving, simply ask for clarification on any point and I would be happy to delve deeper.</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>
> Among the many ways it<br>
> could be explained, MWI is one theoretical interpretation of how it<br>
> could work.<br>
> <br>
> Look at the explanations the AI gave under different assumed interpretations. <br>
> Did you find the explanation assuming CI satisfactory?<br>
<br>
Due to my lack of the underlying equations, I would not trust myself to<br>
judge, except for the fact, that I do feel more inclinved to believe<br>
theories which do not postulate multiple worlds.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The theory does not postulate multiple worlds.</div><div><br></div><div>We postulate the theory itself, which in this case is QM.</div><div><br></div><div>The multiple worlds are predictions of this theory. This is true both in CI and MW.</div><div><br></div><div>The only difference between CI and MW concerns what happens to these worlds when a measurement is made. CI says all but one disappear, MW says they continue to exist.</div><div><br></div><div>The quantum computer is particularly useful to highlight this difference, because quantum computers permit us to delay the measurement/collapse for arbitrarily long times, and to perform arbitrarily complex computations/operations, completely free of measurement/collapse.</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>
><br>
> Here is one example:<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Experiments</a><br>
> <br>
> I don't think anything there is specific to Bohm's interpretation. I see <br>
> Bohm's interpretation as entirely philosophical. It admits<br>
> the existence of all the parallel histories, it just says that only one of <br>
> them is "really real" and that the unfortunate souls in<br>
> the branches that aren't really real are not really conscious.<br>
<br>
Well, that's one example that shows that the various interpretations<br>
have their own ways of believing they can prove one or the other.<br>
Correctly or incorrectly, they do exist.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm. I am not sure how to resolve this. It seems incompatible with what is said here (which was my understanding), that BM gives identical predictions to QM:</div><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/78x6e0/ive_heard_that_bohmian_mechanics_aka_pilot_wave/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/78x6e0/ive_heard_that_bohmian_mechanics_aka_pilot_wave/</a></li></ul><div>I do not understand the intricacies of BM well enough to say whether or not that is true, but perhaps you can find some BM expert who claims the theory does make different predictions, in which case it would not be an interpretation, but its own theory.</div></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>
> "An experiment was conducted in 2016 which demonstrated the potential<br>
> validity of the de-Broglie-Bohm theory via use of silicone oil <br>
> droplets.<br>
> In this experiment a drop of silicone oil is placed into a vibrating<br>
> fluid bath, it then bounces across the bath propelled by waves produced<br>
> by its own collisions, mimicking an electron's statistical behavior <br>
> with<br>
> remarkable accuracy".<br>
> <br>
> The question to ask is whether Bohm's theory predicts anything different we <br>
> could observe about the electron compared to conventional<br>
> QM. I would be greatly surprised to learn that it does.<br>
> <br>
><br>
> > Deutsch writes to a popular audience in his "Fabric of Reality" book. <br>
> I might recommend that if you want to see his<br>
> best attempt at<br>
> > explaining it.<br>
><br>
> Thank you Jason, I've added it to my book list.<br>
><br></blockquote><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">
> No, I think it was the theology that triggered me here, since I don't<br>
> play that game according to the rules of theologists, which makes those<br>
> discussions fairly meaningless to me, unless we beforehand go through<br>
> "the rules".<br>
> <br>
> A rational theologian, could use logic and reason in their analysis though, <br>
> could they not?<br>
<br>
Well, logic only shows us the relationship between terms, so it would be<br>
very convincing. It would be a game where terms, he defines at will,<br>
conforms to them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Like mathematics, philosophy, logic, etc. :-)</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>
><br>
> Yes, of course. If we start to hack away at god and modify the concept,<br>
> I am certain you can make me a believer depending on the definition. =)<br>
> <br>
> Then we are doing theology, hopefully not the kind that scares you. 😉<br>
<br>
Well, not what I would call theology. But again, we can play by your<br>
definition of theology, and yes, we're doing theology. I think you<br>
should come up with a new term. I think keeping "theology" will close a<br>
lot of minds to what you have to say.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm I never considered that.</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>
> Well, here I am not in agreement with you. I did read your blog entry <br>
> on<br>
> the meaning of life for instance, and I do like the way you structured<br>
> it, but I do not buy your conclusion. But that might perhaps be another<br>
> mega-thread? =)<br>
> <br>
> I would like that very much. I am interested to discuss the point(s) of <br>
> departure between our views with regards to this subject.<br>
<br>
I don't know if we should start that one now, or let this one run its<br>
course first?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Let's start it. I am not sure how much longer this one can continue. We already seem to be recovering the same ground.</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>
><br>
> Again, I think here I do not agree. Science can of course investigate<br>
> the phenomenon of religion from a social and psychological point of<br>
> view, but it can never explain it.<br>
> <br>
> What makes you so certain?<br>
<br>
Because it is by its nature a subjective and deeply personal experience.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
You run into the qualia problem of redness. You can describe of course,<br>
how it affects someones life, they can verbally or visually tell you<br>
about it, but you can never yourself know the meaning of it for the<br>
other person. So the external, objective side, science can deal with<br>
perfectly well, but the subjective, meaningful side, science cannot deal<br>
with.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We know (loosely) what physical conditions create a living, conscious, human being.</div><div><br></div><div>If we can find evidence that those conditions can recur (scientifically, using objective empirical evidence), then we are using science to investigate/find evidence for a life after this one (an after life).</div><div><br></div><div>We need not introduce the incommunicability of private subjective experience to find such evidence.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This evidence already exists, in the context of eternal inflation. It implies you will be born infinite number of times in future universes formed by future big bangs.</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>
> Traditional religion as exprienced<br>
> phenomenon, for me, lies outside the scope of science.<br>
> <br>
> Religion rooted in personal experience is often distinguished with the term <br>
> "mysticism." Science, concerned with the objective then,<br>
> would have great difficulty handling mysticism, which is based on subjective <br>
> experience.<br>
<br>
Yes, exactly my point. I think here, as with god and theology, we were<br>
just not careful about definitions, so I think we're very close in our<br>
opinions here. But let's see.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> This is one of the main difficulties science has with studying consciousness <br>
> (which is entirely subjective). But I feel you would not<br>
> say that consciousness is entirely outside the scope of science, on account <br>
> of consciousness being a subjective phenomenon.<br>
<br>
No, consciousness objectified, yes. Subjectified no.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> > > For example, see these sections from my articles:<br>
> > > * <br>
> <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Final_Thoughts</a><br>
> > > * <br>
> <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/#8_The_Technological_Singularity_and_the_Afterlife</a><br>
> > > * <br>
> <a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Room_for_God</a><br>
> ><br>
> > I think there is no rational evidence of god.<br>
> ><br>
> > You think that there isn't any, or are you simply not aware of any? <br>
> The two are very different statements.<br>
><br>
> Depends on your definition of god. So let's start with the easy option<br>
> and say that I believe there is not, and can not be, any rational<br>
> evidence of the bearded man in the sky.<br>
><br>
> But I skipped ahead, and let's play with the definitions, and then of<br>
> course, when we move away from the classical one, it gets more<br>
> interesting.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
> But here already I'm a believer! My computer and current AI:s have<br>
> vastly greater capacity than me in some domains, so according to that<br>
> defintion, sir, yes sir!<br>
><br>
> > - Spatially infinite universes<br>
> > - Mathematical Platonism<br>
> > - Quantum Multiverse theories<br>
> > - String theory landscapes<br>
> > - Simulation Hypothesis<br>
><br>
> Not a fan of the above.<br>
><br>
> > - Technological Singularity<br>
><br>
> Here there is much common ground and basis for discussion about<br>
> definition of god.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> "Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater <br>
> knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater<br>
> creativity, and greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every <br>
> monotheistic tradition God is likewise described as all of<br>
> these qualities, only without limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite <br>
> intelligence, infinite beauty, infinite creativity, infinite<br>
> love, and so on. Of course, even the accelerating growth of evolution never <br>
> achieves an infinite level, but as it explodes<br>
> exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So evolution <br>
> moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although<br>
> never quite reaching this ideal."<br>
> -- Ray Kurzweil in “The Singularity is Near” (2005)<br>
><br>
> > You many not like that conclusion, but pick any theory and I can <br>
> explain how it leads to beings that are superior to<br>
> ourselves, and<br>
> <br>
> I don't! Unlike many others, you were open to considering other definitions <br>
> and changing your beliefs according based on the<br>
> different definitions. The atheists on the other hand, tend to never accept <br>
> other definitions besides the one god they chose to not<br>
> believe in.<br>
<br>
I think that is due to fear of losing control and predictability of the<br>
world perhaps. And the other kind I've read about are people who were<br>
abused within the framework of a religion. But I digress.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes it does seem to have some psychological basis.</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>
> I am curious but also pressed for time, so I don't know when I would have <br>
> time to read them. I will take a look though.<br>
<br>
Will send you off list, and just put them on the virtual reading list.<br>
;)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you!</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>
><br>
><br>
> I guess some suspend their judgement awaiting further evidence, and I <br>
> am<br>
> absolutely certain that there are many who are trying but we are not<br>
> aware of them. Last night I heard of something called the zero-worlds<br>
> theory! I have no idea if it makes sense, but it obviously was inspired<br>
> by the MWI.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It is explained well in this talk: <br>
> <a href="https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=PFH_UFGrvKYGQnDk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=PFH_UFGrvKYGQnDk</a><br>
> <br>
> I am quite partial to the "zero universe interpretation", it highlights the <br>
> fact that what we call universes are emergent and not<br>
> quite real in the sense our intuition suggests. It is quite similar to the <br>
> "many-minds interpretation". All the these theories accept<br>
> a plethora of stuff, where they differ is in what they consider as the truly <br>
> fundamental unit of this reality. Many-worlds would say<br>
> it's the material, whereas zero universe/many-minds would say it's the <br>
> observer-state (i.e. consciousness).<br>
> <br>
> I think this view, that consciousness is more fundamental is closer to the <br>
> truth. It is not that "worlds split" but rather that<br>
> "consciousness differentiates."<br>
<br>
I had a feeling you would enjoy it! =)<br><br>
> <br>
> One would think people get into physics to better understand reality, but <br>
> then, I don't know how to explain such a lack of curiosity.<br>
<br>
I asked about it, and the reason was too see the world. The fact that it<br>
ended up being physics was that it was just an easy subject for the<br>
person and led to easily achieving scholarships which led to being able<br>
to travel and to see the world.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Makes sense!</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>
> > Also I just found this, 25 minute mini-documentary which I hadn't <br>
> seen before, but I enjoyed it, it seems to have been<br>
> made when he<br>
> > was still writing Fabric of Reality:<br>
> > <a href="https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/SDZ454K_lBY?si=hpZkLsitA47U2PEd</a><br>
><br>
> Thank you very much! You do realize this will take time away from my<br>
> current watching of Halo? And I do have to say I see similarities<br>
> between Halo and The Expanse.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> 😂<br>
> <br>
> Is Halo airing again or is there just one season?<br>
<br>
No, just one season. Since I have never played the game I enjoy it. But<br>
I suspect hard core fans will most likely not enjoy it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I liked it.</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>
> The first few seasons of The Expanse were quite great.<br>
<br>
Oh yes! I mentally stopped with the gate, and the rest I try to forget.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think that was when they got a new team of writers.</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>
> Yes I think it is a guide, but it too can be overly relied upon, to our <br>
> detriment.<br>
<br>
Having read my fair share of philosophical debates, that has always been<br>
my intuition. I think it is a good tool, but also one tha can easily<br>
lead us astray and be misused.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>True.</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>
> There is work to unify QM and gravity (quantum gravity theories), the most <br>
> prominent being string theory and loop quantum gravity.<br>
> However it should be stated that both of these are fundamentally quantum <br>
> theories. They don't escape any of the strangeness of QM,<br>
> rather they just offer a hope that we can understand both QM and GR as <br>
> elements of the same more-fundamental theory. My intuition is<br>
> that GR is more likely to be changed and modified than QM, given that in the <br>
> one resolved example where they gave different<br>
> predictions, (the black hole information paradox), QM won out and GR was <br>
> wrong.<br>
<br>
Strange! I haven't heard about string theory in a long while.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>There hasn't been much progress. I think it has made two predictions so far. The first is that there should be a force like gravity, and second, that the mass of particles is something that when multiplied by zero, is zero.</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>
><br>
> Oh, that reminds me. That was one of the arguments in the realism vs<br>
> anti-realism debate and whether the intangibles and unobservables have<br>
> existence or not, that historically there were many unobservables that<br>
> did exist, only to later be found to not exist. So having based<br>
> decisions on unobservables historically, they would have been wrong.<br>
> Well, just remembered, and we covered that to a certain extent above<br>
> when I wrote about the value of theories.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Good point. We might also observe that 99.9% of scientific theories have been <br>
> proven wrong, so on this empirical basis then, we<br>
> should never have any high confidence in our theories. 😉<br>
<br>
Aha... spoken like a true agnostic! Did I just convert you? ;)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps. But the other thing to note, is that when long-tested physical theories are wrong, they're usually only "exceptionally wrong", but usually still "approximately correct".</div><div>QM might not be the final answer, but I think much of its implications would survive in any more-correct new theory.</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>
> <br>
> Yes it is always good to keep that in mind. As Linde reminds us:<br>
> <br>
> "We find that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently <br>
> formulated if we assume that there is some underlying<br>
> reality beyond our perceptions. This model of a material world obeying laws <br>
> of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our<br>
> starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are <br>
> nothing but a useful tool for the description of matter.<br>
> This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous <br>
> assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the<br>
> description of matter. We are substituting reality of our feelings by the <br>
> successfully working theory of an independently existing<br>
> material world. And the theory is so successful that we almost never think <br>
> about its possible limitations."<br>
> -- Andrei Linde in “Inflation, Quantum Cosmology, and the Anthropic <br>
> Principle” (2002)<br>
<br>
Good quote.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks. It's good not to forget that subjectivity is the root of science. Greats, like Planck, Shrodinger, Wigner, Wheeler, occasionally step in to remind physicists of this and keep them humble.</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>
> "The principal argument [against materialism] is that thought processes and <br>
> consciousness are the primary concepts, that our<br>
> knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that <br>
> the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the<br>
> contrary, logically, the external world could be denied–though it is not very <br>
> practical to do so."<br>
> — Eugene Wigner in “Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem” (1961)<br>
> <br>
> Great minds think alike. 😉<br>
<br>
;)<br>
<br><br>
> They do predict things about our physical universe though. The fact that <br>
> shadows are not perfectly crisp, but always blurry, is an<br>
> effect other parallel worlds have on our universe. We can see that shadows <br>
> are blurry. It may be less subtle than a punch in the<br>
> face, but it's there and we can see it with our own eyes.<br>
<br>
Well, if it is that simple, I am sure that the MWI will soon become<br>
dominant. But something tells me that the fact that shadows are blurry<br>
can probably be explainedin other ways, or perhaps, that we cannot<br>
exactly explain it yet. But, a good example nevertheless!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</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>
> > Do you think there is an answer?<br>
> > For example would you say that exactly one of the following two <br>
> sentences is true:<br>
> > A) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 0<br>
> > B) the 10^1000th binary digit of Pi is 1<br>
> ><br>
> > I would say yes, one of these two sentences must be true, even if we <br>
> can't know which one is true.<br>
><br>
> Yes, but this is not a state of the world or a scientific theory, so <br>
> I'd<br>
> argue that this does not apply to our discussion of whether MWI can <br>
> ever<br>
> be proven or not. Add to that, that we also don't know the answer, so <br>
> as<br>
> far as we are concerned it is undefined.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Right it is not relevant to the question of MW. I asked for some <br>
> clarification regarding your philosophy of mathematics, which you<br>
> include more details on below.<br>
<br>
Sorry! Misunderstood.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No worries! </div><div dir="auto"><br></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 would you say that 17 became prime?<br>
> > A) it's always been prime<br>
> > B) After the big bang<br>
> > C) When 17-year cicadas evolved<br>
> > D) When man invented numbers<br>
> > E) When man first counted to 17<br>
> > F) When humans defined prime numbers<br>
> > G) When the first person proved 17 was prime<br>
> > H) Only when a human is actively considering 17 as prime<br>
> > I) Only when a human is actively thinking of the proof that 17 is <br>
> prime <br>
><br>
> I'd say H and I. Remove all counsciousness and the concept no longer <br>
> has<br>
> any existence.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The concept would not exist, but would it's truth exist?<br>
<br>
As long as there is a mind to evaluate the truth, yes. Without minds,<br>
just matter.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think that is consistent.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree something has to be primitively real, but I am not as certain as you that it must be matter. I think an even better case can be made for math.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Math_Matter_Mind">https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Math_Matter_Mind</a></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>
> <br>
> So when there is objective agreement between two subjects, why then do we <br>
> admit the chemical element as part of reality but not these<br>
> other objects which we can also objectively study?<br>
<br>
If you mean math, it is just have the properties of the physical world<br>
is thought about by the beings. Without the beings, that languages and<br>
its truth values, lose all meaning. Only matter is left.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Or maybe not even matter? 🤔</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>
><br>
> Math is a tool developed by humans, and in my opinion only has meaning<br>
> when being interpreted by human consciousness.<br>
> <br>
> You could say the same thing about matter, could you not?<br>
<br>
Yes, if everything is doubted, of course. But as Wigner said, matter is<br>
the most practical way and assumption, that leads to massive benefits,<br>
so I don't see any reason why I should doubt matter.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't ask you to doubt matter. Only to question your belief that matter is what is most fundamental (and not derivative of something more primitive).</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>
><br>
> Since math tries to<br>
> describe aspects of nature in human form,<br>
> <br>
> Is it uniquely human, or could aliens discover the same mathematical truths <br>
> as we have discovered (despite them using different<br>
> notation)?<br>
<br>
Sorry my mistake. Consciousness. I am certain if we meet aliens, they<br>
will have math. And yes, since they are attempting to describe the same<br>
world of matter, their math will correspond with our math, unless they<br>
are better observers and develop the tool/language further.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">👍</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
><br>
> it will follow that every time<br>
> we use the tool, according to the internal rules of the tool,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> But as Godel showed, there is no final (or finite) set of rules that accounts <br>
> for all mathematical truth. We must constantly strive<br>
> to develop ever more powerful theories of mathematical objects, just as <br>
> physicists must always strive to develop better more powerful<br>
> theories in physics. This again, suggests to me, that mathematical truth is <br>
> not a human invention but something infinite and beyond<br>
> ourselves. It is something we study, much like we study the physical world.<br>
<br>
Well, based on my opinions above, I do not share that point of view. </blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm not sure how is is something that can be the subject of opinion. There's a mathematical proof (widely considered the greatest mathematical discovery of past the century) that shows this opinion is no longer tenable.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I<br>
believe it is an invention only meaningful when interpreted by<br>
consciousness.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am surprised then that you did not agree with my meaning of life article, whose principle claim was that all meaning reduces to states of consciousness.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> <br>
><br>
> the<br>
> constants will hold.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> > They only exist when we interpret<br>
> > them.<br>
> ><br>
> > This seems like idealism, only applied to mathematical objects. If <br>
> all the mathematicians go to sleep at the same<br>
> time, does the<br>
> > ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter stop being <br>
> 3.14259... ?<br>
><br>
> In terms of human language and meaning yes. Those are only ideas in the<br>
> mind. Of course you can write down the ideas and how to use the<br>
> language. But the concepts are only meaningful to you, when thought<br>
> about.<br>
><br>
> In terms of aspects in the world, that math tries to describe, no, <br>
> those<br>
> aspects still hold, assuming an external world of some kind.<br>
> <br>
> Would you say, similarly, that this universe did not exist before there were <br>
> any conscious observers within it?<br>
<br>
I would say that it did not meaningfully exist.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">No disagreement here.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> > This was one long email. I can tell you, this would not have <br>
> happened<br>
> > unless it was friday night, and my wife asleep! ;)<br>
> ><br>
> > I feel we are writing a book together. 😉<br>
><br>
> Oh yes! What should we call it? ;) Maybe it's time to sit down together<br>
> for a month or two and harvest the thread into a book? ;)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> We've covered so much it is hard to say what the topic would be. ☺️<br>
> If there is any overriding theme, it is the tension between scientific <br>
> realism and "empirical confirmationism" if that phrase makes<br>
> sense.<br>
<br>
Yes, I agree. I think that is one fundamental tension. Also we touched<br>
on identity and idealism vs materialism. Maybe a good title would be<br>
"How not to do philosophy"? ;)<br>
<br>
Best regards, 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>