[ExI] teachers

[efc at swisscows.email]

Thank you Adrian for finding the words for me to express my current 
position.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote:

> Not by something within the system (within the universe), anyway.  It's like a version of Gödel's incompleteness theorems - to
> paraphrase (and slightly butcher): a system can not fully know itself.
> 
> Which, I suppose, is why I am comfortable with the notion and you are not.  You think there must be a way for us to understand
> everything.  I know there are things that thinking machines of any sort - including us - can never know about themselves, so it is
> not that big a leap to suspect that the same is true in quantum mechanics as it is in information theory.

Earlier in this thread I called myself "annoyingly agnostic" and I think
you managed to explain why. Like you, I am very comfortable with the
fact that we will never be able to know the experience of the subject,
only that experience being objectified. Hence my position on qualia that
it's a "red herring" that will not lead us to anything productive, and
in fact, cannot do so.

I never thought that perhaps this might also apply to quantum physics,
because so far, I got the feeling that people are very certain about
things I perceive as uncertain. At the same time, I am not a physicist
so I'm always cautious since the certainty could be based on knowledge I
do not have.

But apart from that, so far, I feel as if I'm pretty much in agreement
with you here and in terms of discussion, you seem to have the
theoretical knowledge to continue it profitably. I feel a little bit out
of my league here, but I do enjoy immensely, the discussion between you
and Jason.

Best regards, 
Daniel


>  
>       You don't think physics determined the digits of Pi, do you? What about the digits of SQRT(2)?
> 
> 
> I do believe that physics results in the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, as well as the ratio of the length of the
> long side of a 45-45-90 triangle to the length of either of its short sides.  "Digits" are a human invention to attempt to quantify
> things including these ratios.
>  
>       I think superdeterminism is much worse than not being falsifiable. It's a retreat to say methods of science and
>       falsifiability aren't even applicable, because nature isn't reliable or orderly, but rather is unreliable in a way that
>       is adversarial and working against us.
> 
> 
> You describe malice where none exists.  Just because a thing is not the way you would like, even if you see no way to change it, does
> not make it adversarial.
> 
>