[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Mon Aug 28 16:18:09 UTC 2023
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:11 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
I agree.
>
>
> > 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.
>
Earlier you asked a thought-provoking question. Something like: Can a good
explanation count as evidence for a theory being true?
As it happens, there are reasons why good explanations so often end up
being right. Some fairly recent results show that if certain ensemble
theories are right, there is a reason that occam's razor works. I explain
it somewhat here:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Why_the_Laws_are_Simple
Here are some of the important references:
- Ray Solomonoff who developed Solomonoff inductive inference
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference>,
wrote "A Formal Theory of Inductive Inference
<https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/273276/1-s2.0-S0019995800X01210/1-s2.0-S0019995864902232/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEMf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIADOeJQpvH9SPeWP1f%2Bd%2Fc4xxjR4A6A8lASi5pbaOPemAiBivTzoiwo0EOJ%2BaXTkxRNv5WNmm848czZivKqvxBZfYSq8BQiP%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAUaDDA1OTAwMzU0Njg2NSIMC7C5F%2Bv%2F%2Ff8PZuT0KpAFiElIlZfgXc4Z5HS7eWlw9P7avSON%2BXIZhiarOzCTkr28M24T4GWUePrZzQ3wvrx0FsAcMmzaizFkuGGz2GlYsr%2FrGmx2QoEm3730%2Fvmu5hTIfgAkCfhuVCbwchaSBYSnxdXLE9yKhEoTbDDlXTY%2BeRQDPkCL6ThVOUNQyumbwvU1QKN3ge%2Fdt%2Fa1%2FTM6qXS7yw8IWtbJ4KbSJLJOYvba1L%2F9slo%2FoV1hwltSDQq8RfIz2kgldW9zUtYEDhobqgL9kQkgMF8hg%2B%2FRvbqei4h1rqaKfT%2Bzwakio4Eu1OGgoU8YyfTBPwKpgST3YtLOnaP4W0eXSR8DUVPefDrZbWquSG5aRv0qZxbFrkId92wW6TK8zP0nTXLZxmIQgLWZsFYcw%2FoztFbxn9dyuyoGuqUYL9tKvDRl70UNqmwVdgFPU44LJ%2BrQWeHeeHBpZj%2Bvj1yhdQi0eTO9Cbn7lPgNSIqJq%2F7nsJhYFjc2GYu2V%2F4Is7YembzIN40sSzZ7iPHcX28qDvH1FE52jOs%2F6eKq2qBvOCOfyFe8Q71JtHoqty2GHFvevVt6n6DXARfHxPBR3w046iUrCxI8n0M%2BTTeOplKEZhHBeBTtv41Z0ICjooCDiFr7oyR%2Fn2IDdhJyfPdyIu6QLF7sd3%2FEJBTUifbJIhUUttA1iAam%2B%2BPa%2FFaZsMR8%2FHA3ezfu6C6hQm46d1HOU3pFpj5W8XYF6cXotczADrMHSAw7xL3a37f%2FdvSGdohIQjEQjSpMnPcfU3zF6R8H8ONU6DSIAXHxlinM95398yvaUfUqkkBR5I6nNPrEmLjX9yDtIeZvHv2r40vvSuA426aBxCrSSqtBs1MfqcA8kySdzuQOqztbQB4nu%2FdOO3wvshww8NWypwY6sgHh47QYIFIQott%2Bcl%2BYnnivYeoCMjEMWQiHVmI7Kllz5WfisUVh9bQ%2BHytIqwYUeEXK7%2BpaXlTPvnXMZkYqz8I2U%2FNYZ0qCRxIZPDLMsU7NrT%2BgIQ9iTEOzwaRrqkC4eYk87mckofMe3pF4kWsuS3goDy7UejRMFjs5T5lXyzOXEpW3n6cIwCMT0AC%2FtiVZKFUab4jDhffOsu96FnYbtTWyd0kBoGdnRC%2BfkOlXobi0wmTD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20230828T153150Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYVMMT74H5%2F20230828%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=1e8fde23889e78a4b3b009c6da53014d6b4074e4efdb0cd149bbc5bd1a95bdf4&hash=b54135dbe5476cfe069bf44d211091186409cecda54af41d19fab2da1f5a88a9&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0019995864902232&tid=spdf-3156d97b-e2f4-44c7-be1f-6fbd5e7ba0d6&sid=0e933ab042ce324436382667b931c01929d3gxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=0f155103040a5601575d56&rr=7fdd9a825c8c1849&cc=us>"
in 1964, which said:
- "On a direct intuitive level, the high a priori probability
assigned to a sequence with a short description corresponds to
one possible
interpretation of “Occam’s Razor."
- Marcus Hutter who developed the algorithm for universal artificial
intelligence <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI>, wrote "A Theory of
Universal Artificial Intelligence based on Algorithmic Complexity
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0004001.pdf>" in 2000, which said:
- "We propose a theory which formally solves the problem of unknown
goal and environment. It might be viewed as a unification of the ideas of
universal induction, probabilistic planning and reinforcement learning or
as a unification of sequential decision theory with algorithmic
information
theory. [...] This, together with general convergence theorems
motivates us
to believe that the constructed universal AI system is the best one in a
sense to be clarified in the sequel, i.e. that it is the most intelligent
environmental independent system possible."
- Russell Standish who derived postulates of quantum mechanics from a
theory of observation wrote "Why Occam's Razor?
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0001020.pdf>" in 2004, which said:
- "In this paper I show why, in an ensemble theory of the universe,
we should be inhabiting one of the elements of that ensemble with least
information content that satisfies the anthropic principle. This explains
the effectiveness of aesthetic principles such as Occam’s razor in
predicting usefulness of scientific theories."
- Markus Müller who derived laws of physics from algorithmic information
theory <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory>
wrote "Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic
information theory <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826v5.pdf>" in 2020,
which said:
- "Observers will, with high probability, see an external world that
is governed by *simple*, *computable*, *probabilistic* laws."
All these papers provide a justification for why it is that the simplest
explanation consistent with the observations is also the most likely
probable theory to be correct. Until very recently, it was not known why
Occam's Razor was so effective. But if we happen to inhabit an infinite
ensemble of computationally/algorithmically generated worlds, (as an
increasing amount of other evidence suggests), then there is a direct
reason for this. It implies an a priori reason why the theory with the the
shortest description, i.e., the least Kolmogorov complexity
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity>, is more likely to be
true than any theory with a greater Kolmogorov complexity.
>
> > 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.
>
There is a caveat to this "one way information travel": interference
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference#Quantum_interference>. It
is through interference that other parallel universes make their presence
known to us. If it weren't for interference, we would have no reason to
suspect these other universes are real. It is interference that is
mysterious in the two-slit experiment, and it is interference that gives us
useful results from quantum computers.
>
> > 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.
>
It can subjectively impact you. For example, if you find yourself
mysteriously surviving many iterations of Shrodinger's cat experiment,
where you play the role of the cat, then I consider that an impact that is
directly relevant to you. In the same way, if you find after your death in
this universe, you awaken in another universe where this life was a dream
or a video game, I would also consider that an impact to you.
>
> > 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.
>
All evidence we have comes to us through our conscious experience. Physics
can be understood as the science of observations: given past observations,
what are the expected future ones?
But then what happens when we use physics to consider the predicted
observations of a scientist undergoing Shrodinger's cat experiment with
himself as the cat? What does physics predict for the future observations
of a scientist that is killed (at least locally in this part of reality)?
Here, for physics to provide an answer, we require a fully fleshed out
ontology: we need to know answers to questions like:
- Is the universe spatially infinite?
- Is there an eternal succession of big bangs?
- Is there a quantum multiverse?
- Is it possible this experience is duplicated in a simulation elsewhere?
Etc.
Physics will remain incomplete without answers to these questions, because
without answering these questions, physics will fail to provide answers to
the questions of what the scientist will experience, and physics is the
science expected to provide answers concerning future expected
observations. I think to say "physics can't, (or shouldn't try to), answer
these questions." is to needlessly constrain physics.
>
> > 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?
>
Here are some examples of our exploration of the GoL universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE&t=75s
Note there is no upper bound to the complexity of objects that can exist
there, people have been able to build Turing machines inside them.
Imagine we found something in one of these very alien universes that was
sentient, or even intelligent. We could then create a simulation of its
world, copy it into that environment, and also create a communication
portal so that scientists here could communicate with that being. From it's
perspective, it might be sitting in its living room one moment, then
suddenly find itself elsewhere, in a place it doesn't recognize. Our
scientists might use avatars to appear within that environment to talk to
it, or we might create a "window" via something like a TV screen in its
virtual environment where it could look at it out into the computer lab
where the scientists are gathered around. Computer simulate is a tool that
lets us explore and create other realities, and this would be an example of
it's ultimate capacity -- the ability to effectively travel to other
universes and interact with their inhabitants.
For this reason, universes are never entirely causally isolated from one
another, they can peer into other universes, extract information from them,
and that information can effect the goings on in that universe. For
example, the fact that I've written the word "glider" a name referring to
an object that exists in another universe
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(Conway%27s_Game_of_Life)>, is a
direct example of how another universe can have causal impacts on our
universe. In the same way as we have learned about gliders, entities in
another universe could learn about objects called "Daniel" and "Jason" who
inhabit this universe. Upon discovering us, we could be copied into
environments in their universes, we could then directly interact with those
beings if they open a portal for communication.
Others have written about this concept, for example:
"The body and memory collection could be set in any simulated background
environment the Omega Point wished: a simulated world indistinguishable
from the long-extinct society and physical universe of the revived dead
person; or even a world that never existed, but one as close as logically
possible to the ideal fantasy world of the resurrected dead person.
Furthermore all possible combinations of resurrected dead can be placed in
the same simulation and allowed to interact. For example, the reader could
be placed in a simulation with all of his or her ancestors and descendants."
-- Frank Tipler in “The Omega Point as Eshaton
<https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-OMEGA-POINT-AS-ESCHATON%3A-ANSWERS-TO-QUESTIONS-Tipler/1881775bd39a90ed578f7a261a8fccc9eebd5237>”
(1989)
"When we die, the rules surely change. As our brains and bodies cease to
function in the normal way, it takes greater and greater contrivances and
coincidences to explain continuing consciousness by their operation. We
lose our ties to physical reality, but, in the space of all possible
worlds, that cannot be the end. Our consciousness continues to exist in
some of those, and we will always find ourselves in worlds where we exist
and never in ones where we don’t. The nature of the next simplest world
that can host us, after we abandon physical law, I cannot guess."
-- Hans Moravec in “Simulation, Consciousness, Existence
<https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1998/SimConEx.98.html>”
(1998)
"An afterlife in a different simulation or at a different level of reality
after death-in-the-simulation would be a real possibility. It is even
conceivable that the simulators might reward or punish their simulated
creatures based to how they behave, perhaps according to familiar moral or
religious norms (a possibility that gains a little bit of credibility from
the possibility that the simulators might be the descendants of earlier
humans who recognized these norms)."
-- Nick Bostrom in “The Simulation Argument FAQ
<https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html>” (2008)
Jason
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230828/f97a5c82/attachment.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list