[ExI] teachers

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Jason,

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

>       Thank you Jason. Would you disagree with me if I call that absense of strict empirical proof?
> 
> Is your objection based on not believing that life-compatible universes are rare (given current empirical observations), or is your
> objection that it's not valid to infer from the rarity of life-compatible universes that it is likely there are many universes?

I'd say the reason is that I have not seen any empirical proof of other
life-comptaible universes, and therefore, they don't seem pretty real to
me at the moment.

I'm not ruling them out, but as far as my reality goes, at the moment,
they, like god, are not part of it until further evidence presents itself.

> I guess it comes down to whether the absence of observation, plus an inference, counts as an empirical observation. For instance, if
> I play a shell game and put a coin under one of the shells and mix them around and flip one over, and you do not see a coin under it,
> does that count as an empirical observation (which together with your inference) tells you the coin must be under the other shell? Or
> must I lift the second shell for the light reflecting off the coin to enter your eyes, for this to count as empirical evidence of the
> coin's location?

Yes, I think that is the crux of the issue here. For physical objects,
inferring is strong, but verfying it, is stronger. I'd prefer the
possibility to verify it over infering.

But this is physical objects only.

When taking the step from physical objects, or by extension, our
universe, to god or multiple universes, I'd very much not trust
inference, but would very much like to verify.

> With the anthropic reasoning, it is like the shell game where we don't see the coin. We see something that is hard to explain without
> there being many lifeless universes out there, even though light from these other lifeless universes never reaches us. Is this
> empirical? Arguably it's not, but do you have an alternative explanation for the dozen or so coincidences that made life possibile
> here?

Got it. No, my opinion is that it is not empirical. It is an attempt at
explanation, but not proof. Does the explanation have some kind of power
of prediction? Does it help me become a better person? I could accept it
from a pragmatic point of view, but it would be tool and probably not a
part of my reality.

I feel as I am clumsily grasping or trying to say something here, but
perhaps you can tease it out of me, or a good nights sleep might help me
find the right words.

>       I think those kind of discussions sometimes let our imaginations run away with ourselves, and even if they indicate
>       something, I will never know, and it will never affect me, so as far as I am concerned, I can disregard it.
> 
> But they can affect you. The existence of other universes provide continuation paths for your consciousness. You might awaken there,
> or find yourself surviving an otherwise not survivable situation in this universe, through the continued existence of a parallel self

Well, the problem is that this is a "could". So far it has not happened,
and I have not heard from anyone who had it happen to them. So yes,
anything can happen, but so far I have not seen any proof of this
happening to me or anyone else. If there never can be a proof, then I
prefer to leave it at the very stimulating thought experiment level.

> in one of those universes. It may even provide a means for life here to survive the heat death of this universe (by having some other
> entity in another less resource constrained universe) copy-and-paste us into their universe, just as we can copy and paste objects
> from the John Conway's Game-of-Life universe into our own.

True, it may do so, but my reasoning I think, remains the same.

Best regards, 
Daniel


> Jason 
> 
>  
>
>       Best regards,
>       Daniel
> 
>
>       On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> 
> 
>
>             On Saturday, August 26, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>                   Hello Stuart,
>
>                   Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting
>                   edge physics.
>
>                   You say that
>
>                         that a copy of you can truly be you, then you can relax because you are already immortal. You
>             don't need to
>                         copy yourself because there are already plenty of, if not infinite numbers of, you strewn about
>             the
>                         multiverse.
> 
>
>                   What I wonder is, are infinite numbers of you and multiverses supported by proof or is itone of many
>             interpretations of
>                   current theories?
> 
>
>             Anthropic considerations provide strong evidence, in the sense that the probability there's only one universe
>             (with one kind of
>             physics) is on the order of 1 in 10^122.
>
>             https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/
>
>             This is as close to proof as anything science can provide.
>
>             Jason 
> 
> 
>
>              
>
>                   Best regards, Daniel
> 
>
>                         Stuart LaForge
> 
>
>                               This is a crucial point, for those of us interested in uploading, so I think we should
>             really
>                               understand it, yet it makes no sense to me. Would you please explain further?
>
>                               Could you also please explain the comment about continuity and not-discontinuity not being
>             the
>                               same thing?
>
>                               Ben
>                               _______________________________________________
>                               extropy-chat mailing list
>                               extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>                               http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         extropy-chat mailing list
>                         extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>                         http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>
>                   _______________________________________________
>                   extropy-chat mailing list
>                   extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>                   http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> 
>