[ExI] teachers
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 16:36:22 UTC 2023
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 9:40 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
The meaning of "empirical evidence", to me, is any prediction made by a
theory which we can verify with our senses or observations (or indirectly
by observing results of a measurement apparatus).
Note that evidence doesn't ever lead to 100% certainty of a theory, but
each successful prediction a theory makes, increases our confidence in the
truth of that theory, because there was a nonzero chance the observation
would falsify the theory.
Agree so far?
Now consider each of these predictions, which could have been made a
priori, by ensemble theories that use algorithmic information theory:
1. The universe follows simple stable laws
2. The laws are probabilistic in nature
3. The universe will with a high likelihood appear to have a beginning in
time
None of these outcomes had to be the case. We might live in a universe with
no apparent beginning, or with laws that aren't probabilistic in nature, or
laws that aren't easily described.
We observed our universe, and found empirical evidence which confirms these
predictions. It's no different than devising a theory of gravity then
looking at planetary orbits to gather empirical evidence supporting that
inverse square law of gravitational attraction.
So I don't understand why you think the examples in that section are not
empirical.
> > 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.
>
You don't think QM has been verified? It's responsible for the most
accurate prediction in physics (so far confirmed to 8 decimal places).
> > 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. ;)
>
Let's say there are two theories for what is happening:
1. You are very lucky
2. The game is rigged
Let's say you start playing the lottery and you win 10 times in a row.
Does this not start to increase the likelihood of #2 as an explanation, in
your assessment?
> > 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.
>
It's fine to be agnostic, but eventually we need to act in the world. If in
the future you are given a choice to receive a neural prosthesis (say to
restore or preserve brain function), will you refuse to make up your mind
because you are agnostic on a theory of consciousness, or will you make a
best guess given available information?
> > 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.
Nothing can ever be proven, but I would guess you still commit to the
theory of gravity or evolution.
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.
>
I may be more agnostic than you, as I don't think proof can ever be
obtained. We could be in a dream world or simulation where nothing we
believe reflects reality. But despite this predicament, I still think some
theories are far more likely to be correct than others.
> > 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.
How do you know that? Could we not be ideas in the mind of God?
Therefore I do not think it
> makes sense to relax this constraint.
>
Are you not agnostic regarding various theories in philosophy of mind,
(which is perhaps the least-settled subject in science today.) Especially
given that mind-brain identity theory is a minority position.
> > 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.
>
The nature of reality and of consciousness are closely connected, in my
opinion.
> > > 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.
>
I always thought that was a bad characterization of Platonism.
I prefer defining it as mathematical truth is not defined by us. It
transcends us, and any attempt to define it.
This was the chief discovery of Godel. Our systems and proofs are not the
source of mathematical truth. No matter what mathematical system we come up
with, there will always be truths we cannot prove without system. So then,
where does truth come from, if not us or our axiomatic systems?
Godel realizes his result implies Platonism. As he writes:
"[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems
to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own creation; for the
creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they
can’t have any others except those he has given to them. So this
alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least
something in them) exist objectively and independently of our mental acts
and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of
Platonism or ‘realism’ as to the mathematical objects."
-- Kurt Gödel in “Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and
their implications p. 311″ (1951)
> > 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. ;)
>
It's only once in a blue moon anyone ever changes their mind on anything.
Jason
> 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/20230831/d5107141/attachment.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list