[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Mon Aug 28 14:12:43 UTC 2023
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> But as you can tell, I tend to be annoyingly agnostic sometimes. ;)
>
> I don't mind it. Agnosticism is the best position to be in to learn.
It could also mean I don't dare to take a position, and just want to
"play it safe". However, I much prefer your interpretation! ;)
(some atheists, many decades ago, always liked that line of attack with
me)
> Being annoyingly agnostic, I love the fact that there is so much we
> still don't know, and I am looking forward to all the scientists who
> will enlarge our sphere of knowledge and awareness of ourselves and our
> position in the universe.
>
> Yes. I think given Godel's incompleteness theorem, there will always be things we don't know, no matter how far we progress.
That's a wonderful and beautiful world! Imagine the boredom of knowing
all, without anything left to explore!
Best regards,
Daniel
> Oh, and just so you don't understand me, that was a jab against religion
> and not theorizing and and doing philosophy. ;)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023, <efc at swisscows.email> wrote:
> > Thank you Jason,
> >
> > So would that imply then that there is no true randomness and that it is only because our limited
> point
> > of view, that it
> > looks random?
> >
> >
> > There is a "meta level" of machinery kind of?
> >
> >
> > Yes, super determinism says there are hidden variables, determined by machinery we can't access, but
> > moreover, everything we do to
> > try to measure these hidden variables, by whatever processes we choose, flipping coins, picking numbers in
> > our head, using digits of
> > Pi or e, using pseudorandom number generators, anything, whatever we pick and whatever method we choose,
> the
> > universe will choose
> > hidden variables such that they will yield the Bell probabilities giving the false appearance of random
> > quantum collapse, where there
> > are not. But if this is true, and if we use constants in math like Pi or e, or SQRT(2), to choose how to
> set
> > the rotation of a
> > polarizing filter when measuring two entangled photons, then somehow the universe must have known that you
> > would be using, say, the
> > digits of SQRT(2) when it created the entangled photons years earlier before you measured them. So that in
> a
> > sense, the photon pair
> > creation event must have known how you would be measuring them, and then generated them in a way that would
> > yield the expected
> > quantum probabilities. It would also know you wouldn't in the last moment, change your mind to use the
> digits
> > of Pi to choose the
> > angle of rotation for the polarizing filter. Super determinism is the idea that the whole universe is a
> > conspiracy to make us falsely
> > believe in quantum probabilities.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry if I'm not making sense, it is because I did not understand the example. ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If it's hard to understand it's because it's so hard to believe anyone would propose this as a serious
> > theory, but that's the length
> > the center of the universe or solar system, at least I think it comes from the same place).
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023, efc--- via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > Thank you very much Stuart, I was just about to ask for a book and you already thought of
> > that.
> >
> > But what about superdeterminism?
> >
> >
> > In my view this is the worst of all possible interpretations. It is the theory that the laws of
> > physics are
> > conspiring to always fool
> > us. (Something like Descartes's evil demon). For example, if we choose to do a Bell experiment
> > and set our
> > orientations according to
> > some random sequence, super determinism says the correlations of the particles are also
> > determined by the
> > same processes that drive
> > the random number generator we use to set our orientations.
> >
> > Okay, this is weird, but not logically impossible.
> >
> > But now consider if we set our orientations according to the digits of Pi, did the processes
> that
> > determine
> > particle orientations
> > also determine the digits of Pi? At this point I think super determinism is no longer
> defensible.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't that also be one of the better "candidates" even though it goes
> > against our intuition?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-08-26 15:17, efc--- via extropy-chat wrote:
> > Hello Stuart,
> >
> > Just a quick question from someone not very knowledgeable of cutting
> > edge physics.
> >
> > You say that
> >
> > If you believe 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 it
> > one of
> > many interpretations of current theories?
> >
> > Best regards, Daniel
> >
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > It is not proven in a mathematical sense, but many worlds (MWI) is the only
> > interpretation of
> > quantum
> > mechanics that is complete. All that you need for many worlds to be true is that
> the
> > Schrodinger
> > equation be
> > true. The alternatives require extra stuff.
> >
> > For example, collapse interpretations need an additional mechanism by which
> > measurement can
> > somehow cause a
> > quantum particle that is spread out everywhere at once to suddenly be somewhere
> > specific at
> > faster than the
> > speed of light. It requires consciousness to be a fundamental property of the
> > universe in the
> > sense that like
> > the next level of videogame, nothing is rendered into reality until you look at it.
> > Basically, if
> > collapse
> > interpretations are real, then we are very likely in a simulation run by some
> > intelligent
> > designer who is
> > trying to save computational resources by not rendering anything into reality until
> a
> > simulated
> > person
> > interacts with it.
> >
> > Many worlds allows particles to always be everywhere at once because wherever the
> > particle is,
> > there is a
> > separate you there to witness it there.
> >
> > The other alternative is the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation which require
> a
> > second
> > equation that
> > describes how the wave function is a pilot wave that pushes a particle along its
> path
> > to be true
> > in addition
> > to the Schrodinger wave equation which describes the wave function.
> >
> > So to summarize:
> > 1. Copenhagen/collapse interpretations needs additional assumptions about the laws
> of
> > physics
> > requiring
> > conscious observers in order to function properly. Trees do not fall in the woods
> or
> > make noise
> > unless you
> > are there to appreciate it.
> > 2. Debroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave: This interpretation requires additional "helper"
> > equations to allow
> > quantum
> > mechanics to function by keeping track of hidden variables.
> > 3. Superdeterminism: everything that happens including your own thoughts and
> > decisions are
> > unerringly
> > following a script that has existed from moment of the big bang.
> >
> > Or . . .
> >
> > 4. MWI: The Schrondinger wave equation is all you need and there is enough real
> > estate out there
> > to cover
> > every possibility that the wavefunction entails.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvQ3Wyw2M4
> >
> > Sean Carroll does an excellent job covering this in his various You Tube videos or
> > his book
> > "Something Deeply
> > Hidden". I generally don't believe we live in a simulation and therefore prefer
> many
> > worlds over
> > conscious
> > collapse theories, but every once in a while nature throws me a curve ball that
> makes
> > me adjust
> > my posterior
> > probabilities like this:
> > https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194212940/question-mark-space-webb-telescope-photo
> >
> > I hope that helped.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Stuart LaForge
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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