[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Tue Sep 12 21:54:33 UTC 2023
Good evening Jason,
On Thu, 31 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?
Yes.
> 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.
Because if its a theory, that posits something we can never, in this
life or this world, confirm, I do not see how they can ever be proven.
It's the same situation as god. If its a being, and unmoved mover, that
by definition is outside our world, and doesn't affect it in any way,
its kind of a pointless theory which does not affect me, and also, by
definition, can never be proven since it forever exists outside this
world.
There is a difference here however, and I fully acknowledge that
difference. If, and only if, an experiment is devised, that does gather
uncontroversial proof of something outside this world, (but I do not see
how this could ever be) then of course the scientific community will
change its mind, and so would I.
I do warn however, that since I am not a theoretical physicist, I will
change my mind much later when someone has managed to translate the
finding and the equation into something I can understand. ;)
> 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).
Sorry, I was being unclear. I mean the interpretations such as MWI,
superdeterminism, CI and so on. Based on my readings, those are theories
that try to make sense of QM formulas and experiments, but they are
still only theories, and there is no conclusive proof for any of them.
As I said above, it could very well be that one of them will turn out to
be the right interpretation with hard proof, but I am not convinced that
they are currently anything else but theories.
> > 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?
Yes, in a physical game of chance, in this world. And yes, it does
increase the likelihood. But I can never prove it unless I can pick
apart the game.
> > 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?
Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. ;) On a more serious note, me
remaining agnostic or acting would depend entirely on the situation and
the outcome related to acting or not acting.
When it comes to questions of metaphysics, I am entirely comfortable
being agnostic, and I actually see cultivated agnosticism as a strength
in these types of discussions. It makes it much easier for me to
criticize myself.
> > 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.
I would rank gravity ahead of evolution, and I rank both of them way,
way ahead of MWI for reasons already mentioned. When it comes to
committing I think gravity again ranks higher than evolution based on
results and ease of proof, and again, MWI at the bottom.
> 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.
What do you think about the argument, that the fact that you are arguing
proves that you do think you're not alone (i.e. arguing with yourself)?
I read about it somewhere, and curious about what you think about it.
As for theories, yes, some (god) might be moer plausible than others
(pink unicorns).
> > 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?
Sure. And I could be an illusion. But if we're pushing doubt that far,
then this conversation lacks all meaning as well. So for pragmatic
reasons, I am willing to concede that it is highly likely that you and I
exist, and that we do live in a material universe.
But yes, as per countless philosophical discussions, everything,
including you, me, and even yourself can always be doubted, and then we
end up in some kind of solipsism. That discussion however, is no fun, so
I think I'll refrain from going there. ;)
> 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.
I know very little about it, except some scattered reading and our other
discussion, so I cannot say I have a _hard_ position. I do think some
sound more reasonable than others. I do not think there is one position
that has been conclusively proven. I do think that our discussion around
mind and continuity is/was very enlightening and I enjoyed it. =)
> 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.
Could be. I think that seems to be the most modern theory.
> > 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?
When something corresponds with a state in the world? I'm no expert, but
I think it makes sense that truth is a concept only meaningful when we
interpret and process information about the world. Without us, the
concept is meaningless.
> 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."
Well, I disagree and I am not happy to see that he needs to drag the
creator, and assumptions relating to a creator into this. So not
convinced by his line of reasoning.
> 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.
Very true. ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> 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
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list