[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Thu Aug 31 13:39:26 UTC 2023
Hello Jason,
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> That is quite a big "if" in my world.
>
> It would be quite doubtful, I agree, if not for all the evidence we have for it. I have put together a list of confirming evidence
> here:
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence
Could you expand here? I'm afraid that I still do not see any
verifiable, empirical evidence. I do see well thought out theories, and
I do concede that in the future maybe a way will be found in which to
test them by making predictions and performing experiments which confirm
or deny them.
> Hold on... so when checking quantum interference and the two slit
> experiment, it seems to me that the experiment resulted in the
> interpretations and theories we are discussing. So since I am doubting
> information transfer between universes, I don't see how we can use this
> experiment, which gives rise to what I am doubting, to justify or prove
> what I'm doubting here. MWI is one interpretation among many, which are
> not proved. So I would not count it as proof of this.
>
> All theories of QM accept a multiplicity of parts of reality. This is how the single-electron two slit experiment is explained (the
> electron is in two places at once). Where the theories diverge is in saying what happens when we look at the system.
>
> CI says all the other possibilities a particle (or system of particles) might be in, while they were real, once observed all but one
> of them then suddenly vanish. This is the issue Shrodinger pointed out in his cat experiment. How could a living (or dead cat)
> suddenly disappear (or appear?) when we open the box? This seemed quite incredible.
>
> MW says the superposition spreads contagiously as superposed particles interact with other particles. See this presentation I put
> together for how the superposition spreads, from particles to systems of particles (including our brains):https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1NThhVw4hrPxOueAQEwr-MNfIQiBaPd9o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109779696990142678208&rtpof=true&sd=t
> rue
I think maybe we've reached the end here. Yes, MWI, CI and others are
theories developed to explain what's happening in the two slit
experiment. But, so far they have not been verified by empirical proof.
Given my standards of evidence, extrapolations are not truths, and I'd
rather acknowledge that we don't know, and suspend judgment, than "jump
in" and believe a theory that has not (and in some cases, based on some
writers on the subject) can not be tested and verified.
> Well, my interpretation is that I'm a lucky guy, not that MWI is right.
>
> Would you bet in advance that you could survive 40 iterations? (1 in a trillion odds)
> Would you change your assessment as to whether or not QM was true after you found yourself surviving 40 iterations?
No. I would believe, lacking empirical proof of MWI, that I'm an
extremely lucky guy. ;)
> Since I'm talking about this world, any happenings after my death do not
> have any bearing on my beliefs in this world. Again, no information
> travels from the dead to us based on anything I ever read (religious
> relatives aside).
>
> Can beliefs in this world not bear on possibilities of things occurring outside this world?
Anything is possible (well, assuming at least that we exclude
contradictions) but we are talking about belief and not empirical proof
related to the existence we are inhabiting right now. I prefer desert
landscapes, to filling my conceptual world with a multitude of
interpretations and beings, at least when it comes to navigating this
world. Then again, entertaining and discussing these theories (and
philosophy) is fun, so from that point of view, I am willing to engage,
but that does not mean I believe in them.
> Bingo! I think actually, as per Adrians post as well, that this is the
> nature of the question. Physics and science will by design most likely
> forever be incomplete. We can approach truth, but never realize it 100%.
>
> This can be shown quite easily, actually. If we arrange a computer running some program for which we don't know whether or not it
> will finish and then turn itself off, then it is also a physical problem how much power this computer will ultimately draw. But this
> physical question may not be answerable under known mathematics, and there will always remain problems for which currently known
> mathematics are insufficient to answer this question for some programs.
I agree.
> But I would not from this fact conclude that we should not attempt our best to expand physics and ontology, to expand the scope of
> questions that are answerable.
I agree. We should definitely strive for expanding our horizons,
developing more powerful tools, push further and further ahead. But, at
the same time, in my opinion, it is important not to commit too much to
theories which cannot be proven. They are an important tool, they can
serve as inspiration, but it should be kept in mind that they are, and
will always be, theories, until proof, in this world, is obtained.
> Instead of seeing this as a limitation, perhaps this is instead a
> strength?
>
> I think it's enough to acknowledge there will always be things we do not know. But I don't think that's ever a justification for
> ceasing or limiting our exploration.
Agreed!
> Ah, but this is mixing levels. We are running the simulation in our
> world. So yes, as far as the beings inside the virtual machine are
> concerned, that is all they know. But there is nothing they can do to
> escape their medium of existence by themselves.
>
> You are defining their existence in terms of their material construction. If we, however, relax this constraint, and say any
> identical abstraction is sufficient to re-create their conscious (and the material substrate is unimportant) then external simulation
I do, since we live in a material universe. Therefore I do not think it
makes sense to relax this constraint.
> mainstream view in philosophy of mind, multiple realizability. If you destroy a mind in one place and rebuild it elsewhere, the
> reconstructed person survives, even if different atoms are used. If our minds can be viewed as certain computations, then any mind
> can be created in any universe in which a Turing machine can be built.
Ah, this connects to our other discussion, I think I'll get back to that
in our other thread about ID and consciousness.
> > 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
>
> As per above, I still do not see how this could be. I'm very sorry.
>
> It might help to consider the, (what I consider to be analogous), question of how does mathematical knowledge enter our universe?
>
> What physically caused me to write: "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are 180 degrees" ? Are the causes entirely
> physical? Do mathematical truths have any bearing on what happens or can happen in this universe?
I am not a platonist, and believe math is created, inspired by patterns
and relations we discover in the world. I do not believe mathematical
concepts exist in a platonic world of ideas.
> feel as if this might end up as the qualia discussions, where one side
> cannot see how the other cannot see.
>
> There is a loose analogy between separate physical universes and separated conscious minds. Things become incommunicable due to a
> lack of shared points of reference. E.g., I can no more explain my concept of red to you, then two beings in two different universes
> can communicate the meaning of a meter between each other.
Yes, I agree about that. I do not also, believe in any unique redness.
It only has meaning, as an subjective experience, relative to that
individual. But that relates to the "redness" and qualia thread, and I
do not think it ended up convincing anyone in any direction. ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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