[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Mon Aug 28 14:10:19 UTC 2023
Hello Jason,
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> 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.
>
> What would you say about the measurements from the Planck satellite which confirm the theory of inflation, and inflation (generally
...
> (Just some examples I like to bring up to show scientist often use theories for things we can't see, so MW is not a unique or special
> case in this regard. For whatever reason people seem more willing to accept the infinite universes of external inflation than MW)
On a detailed level, I have very little to say, since I have not studied
these questions deeply. But, related to our conversation, I'd definitely
say that there are varying degrees of certainty and belief.
> 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.
>
> Trust but verify. ��
Always! ;)
> 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?
>
> Perhaps this is the role filled by abductive reasoning:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
I really like the formulation:
"Abductive reasoning, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible
conclusion but does not definitively verify it. Abductive conclusions do
not eliminate uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms
such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive
reasoning as inference to the best explanation,[3] although not all
usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are
equivalent."
Relating to your examples above, plausible conclusion but does not
definitely verify it. Since the galaxies will never be seen, that's
about the best we can do, and we will forever live without certainty.
> 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.
>
> We use induction to develop theories, then deduction to determine consequences of theories. If we have a high confidence in our
> theories then we should have a high (but not perfect) confidence in the predictions of those theories in cases we can't directly
> confirm.
>
> Surely, when we test something directly and confirm it our confidence approaches 100%, but consider our confidence for something
> we've never tested, such as our confidence that the theory of gravity would predict that a 1-ton diamond, if dropped would fall if
> placed in Earth's gravitational field. We're confident in this prediction solely due to our confidence in the theory of gravity. I
> think our confidence in the multiverse rests on similar grounds.
I see and accept your point, but I do not feel as confident about the
multiverse, as the result of a 1-ton diamond. It seems to me, that there
is no clear consensus or proof of the matter. The point that information
only travels one way in that scenario (see answer to Bill and the MWI
article on wikipedia) makes a lot of sense to me. So the diamon scenario
and the multiverse scenario are in my opinion different scenarios with
different levels of confidence.
> Well, the problem is that this is a "could". So far it has not happened,
>
> That you or I can remember.
True. ;)
> and I have not heard from anyone who had it happen to them.
>
> The theory explains why we would not have evidence within this universe of others in other universes simulating us and copying us
> there. The trip is one-way. So we can't consider this lack of evidence as evidence of absence.
In that case it can never be verified, and since it will in that case
not impact us in any way, I'd say that this is a weakness of that
theory.
> 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.
>
> The proof can only come if/when you find yourself in another universe. It is much like with quantum suicide: you can only experience
> the proof for yourself, and can't share it.
Relative to this world, and empirical proof á la science, that is a
proof I am not willing to accept as proof.
> True, it may do so, but my reasoning I think, remains the same.
>
> Well perhaps this is the evidence you're looking for. If we, say, discover a glider in the GoL universe and then copy it and paste it
> into its own GoL space where it can enjoy gliding forever, then here is an example of "someone" whom underwent the procedure, so you
> know it alcan and does happen for some entities. Now consider: what is the simulated universe is more complex and the entity we copy
> into a simulation of our choosing is conscious?
Could you expand a bit on this point?
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list