[ExI] teachers
efc at swisscows.email
efc at swisscows.email
Thu Sep 14 17:06:06 UTC 2023
Hello Jason,
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> > 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,
>
> What I am saying is we can confirm it by looking at properties of our own universe. It's like this:
>
> 1. A theory predicts two things: A and B
> 2. We observe A, thereby finding some observational confirmation of this theory.
>
> In this case, "A" is the universe being quantum mechanical. It didn't have to be. And it is quite strange and unexpected that the
> universe should be quantum mechanical. No other theory we know of can explain why the universe should be quantum mechanical.
Yes, so far, so good. I'm not debating (or at least that was not my
intention) QM here. I'm debating interpretations of qm which in some
cases I think go too far, and in my opinion, some interpretations are
unscientific and can never be proved, other we _might_ be able to prove,
but actually doing so, lies far, far ahead in the future.
> We have looked at the universe and found it to be quantum mechanical. Therefore we have some confidence (from observational evidence)
> that this theory is true.
>
> Now this theory also predicts B, which is the prediction of infinite other universes beyond this one. We are stuck in the universe
> and so our inability to observe these other universes is not evidence of their absence. We thus have neither observationally
> confirmed nor refuted the prediction of B. Our confidence in the theory is unperturbed.
That's one interpretation among many, and not without its critique and
claims that it cannot be proven etc. Just adding that, but yes, MWI is
the theory that you find most probable, so let's focus on that one.
I disagree slightly here. If I make a claim that something exists, it is
up to me to provide the proof. In the absence of that proof, I do not
find it productive to entertain the possibility of innumerable
intangible items, universes or abstract concepts. That leads to
metaphysical chaos.
> Let's say our confidence in the theory is 95%.
> Then based on the above our confidence in B is also 95%.
Well, I think that's the problem here. Your confidence is 95%, my
confidence is not. And since there is no proof either way, and since
there are many competing theories, it currently remains a theory and the
confidence varies wildly depending on who you ask. It seems to me, that
every theory has his highly educated and intelligent champion and all
are equally good at arguing their point to me as a non-physicist with
limited math skills.
But, let's imagine that tomorrow _the experiment_ (TM) is performed, that
brings final evidence for MWI, that would be filtered through experts,
replicated, used for predictions etc. and confidence would then shoot up
to close to 100%.
> I do not see how they can ever be proven.
>
> How do we know earth isn't hollow, or that the big bang happened? Noone has ever been in a position to see these things. Our
> confidence in these facts is indirect and based on theory. Do you not accept them for that reason? Or if you are confident in these
> facts, on what basis?
>From a philosophical point of view, you are correct of course, and we
all end up in solipsism if everything is doubted. When it comes to what
makes me believe in bigbang or gravity with a high degree of confidence
rather than the MWI, I'll lean on the consensus of the scientific
community, since I am not a scientist, and yes, shame on me for doing
that. ;) It is sad that science has become so specialized that that is a
necessary shortcut for non-scientists. I'll pay the price of being late
to the party, and I think that is a price worth paying.
> 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.
>
> Our inability to observe God does not make us powerless to apply theory and rationality to discover properties of God. For example,
> you might use an observation of something in this universe, say the existence of evil, to reason that if God exists he is either
> unwilling or unable to prevent that evil from existing in this universe.
But that is an empty or nonsensical term if you talk with someone who does
not believe in god. It only amounts to language games. Not to any
knowledge about the world. You can say infinite amounts of statements
about god, but at the end of the day, they will yield nothing.
Of course, within the constraints of the god language game, I can play
along and we can discuss proof of god. But in my opinion, this is not
worth while.
I think Karl Jaspers expresses my opinion quite well:
"The truth, as against all supposed proofs and refuta
tions of the existence of God, seems to be this: The so-
called proofs of the existence of God are funda
mentally no proofs at all, but methods of achieving
certainty through thought. All the proofs of the exist
ence of God and their variants that have been devised
through the centuries differ essentially from scientific
proofs. They are attempts to express the experience of
man’s ascent to God in terms of thought. There are
roads of thought by which we come to limits at which
the consciousness of God suddenly becomes a natural
presence." (Karl Jaspers, Way to Wisdom)
I think those proofs are crutches to allow people to intellectually
express an experience or fundamental belief which is not provable.
> It is similar with multiverse theories. We can look at aspects of things within our own universe and reason about what theories could
> explain the properties or aspects we observe of or in our universe. It just happens that the simplest (and perhaps only?) theory that
> can explain why our universe is quantum mechanical is an infinite ensemble theory.
>
> 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.
>
> Quantum computers do this. No one can explain their operation without assuming the reality of the wave function and it's superposed
> states. If the wave function and it's superposition are real, it counts as something beyond our universe (as no one in any branch can
> observe it fully), and it also implies a multiverse.
Well, based on what I have read, this is not settled. There are many
explanations and theories of which MWI is one.
> 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.
>
> Many worlds is QM. QM is many worlds. MW is not an interpretation because it is strictly the idea that the universe always follows
> the laws of QM without exception.
>
> To say MW is an interpretation of QM would be like saying the belief that the universe always follows general relativity is an
> interpretation of general relativity.
>
> On the other hand, CI is not QM, it says the universe stops obeying QM at certain times under certain conditions (wave function
> collapse), and so it is straight-forwardly a rejection of QM. It's not an interpretation of QM, it's an altogether different theory.
Ok, then we have a misunderstanding here. My understanding of quantum
mechanics is based on what we've discussed here, along with various web
sites and wikipedia.
On wikipedia, under quantum mechanies, I find the following
interpretations:
Bayesian Consistent histories Copenhagen de Broglie–Bohm Ensemble Hidden-variable
Local Many-worlds Objective collapse Quantum logic Relational Transactional
of which MWI is one, and that it is far from settled which one of these
is the correct one.
But this is good! Because I feel that we are perhaps talking past each
other which would then explain a lot of disagreement. =)
> 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.
>
> Well we can never prove anything. But I'm willing to bet that when the second tower was hit on 9/11 you concluded that you had
> observed an intentional act rather than two accidents. We use probability in our reasoning like this all the time in our everyday
> lives. Quantum suicide just asks you to apply that same kind of reasoning.
What is the suicide rate among MWI proponents? As for using statistics
beyond this world, I think we already touched on that a few emails back.
> 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)?
>
> It's a good question. Since I believe there is only one mind then in a certain sense I do believe I am arguing with myself.
> Regardless, I find such discussion a fruitful exercise, whoever you may be.
That's a nice way of thinking about it. Rest assured, I have not
forgotten the Arnold Zuboff paper!
> Since I also believe in an infinite and comprehensive reality, there is further not one version of you, but an infinite number (and
> from my limited perspective) there are many distinct possibilities that remain compatible with everything I presently know. (You
> could be someone outside this simulation, an alien, a delusion, or exactly who you say ��). You are in fact all of these, in varying
> fractions across the multiverse, just as I have analogous existences as all of these possibilities to you from your perspective.
Given your beliefs and where they lead, I find you very consistent! =)
> 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).
>
> What basis do you use to compare the relative likelihood of two theories for which we have no observational evidence? Is it innate
> complexity of the theory? (I.e. do you use the heuristic of simplicity when you judge theories?) If so, what is the basis of this?
Good question! I know no straight answer. ;) If I briefly analyze myself
with the option of god and a pink unicorn, I'd say that god wins due to
how comprehensive the theory is, and how well it would "fit" with the
world as it is, over a pink unicorn, which seems to be something chose
in jest and very arbitrary. ;)
> 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 everything you know is compatible with our existence in idealism (including all our assumed observations of matter). Further,
> physical experiments never tell us what any thing *is*, only how things behave.
But we can never know what anything "is" except our own consciousness. I
think a material world is the surer bet, over, what seems like a
material world plus, an additional platonic or idealist world.
> We have two metaphysical theories:
> Materialism and Idealism
> How do you decide between them, without using metaphysics, reasoning, etc. (When observational evidence doesn't work).
>
> You either have to be agnostic on materialism/idealism, or you must accept that whatever methods you use to decide between them, are
> applicable to questions like do other universes exist. It would be inconsistent, I think to use metaphysics to answer one question
> but say metaphysics is invalid when I deciding the other question.
Yes, philosophically we can doubt everything and nothing is certain,
including the possible illusion of us experiencing anything.
But absolute doubt refutes itself. On pragmatic grounds, as in, science
works, does gives us "power" over the physical world, allows us to
predict events in the physical world, to me, provides evidence of a
materialist position.
And _yes_, I do give you that no one can be sure about anything, but
since that is a dead end, I do find the pragmatic way, and the simple
idea of material instead of material + ideal to be the way forward.
But no, I am not 100% sure of that. And yes, based on what we've
discussed so far, do not see how anything about MWI could _currently_
move it from a theory to something which would fit well in with our
current ways of predicting events.
As for possibility, and I won't assign a percentage, any of the
interpretations could be true, but just as a god could exist, I'll
insist of not acknowleding him or them, until more proof is known and
when he or they can be used to make testable predictions.
> 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. =)
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> Do the digits of Pi go on forever,?
>
> This is a mathematical truth without correspondence to any physical fact of our finite universe of 10^120 bits.
>
> So if Pi has digits that go on forever, they can't have any physical correspondence, and they cannot exist in our universe. Whe e
> then, do they know exist?
Because they never get consciously computed. The concept of pi and
eternal nr series is only relevant as a concept in a physical brain
interpreted by a human being (or a conscious being). The actually
computed nr, in the form of mathematics, does not exist without the
human brain, consciousness, intepreting these symbols.
> 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.
>
> There are infinite truths not realizable by man, nor any entity in this universe. This follows from the fact that there are systems
> of mathematics that have more axioms than atoms in the observable universe.
See my previous reply.
> Just consider something simple, like the factors of zero. Are there an infinite number of them? No person can comprehend them all of
> them, which suggests a finite number of factors. So then, how many factors does zero have (if the truth of a number being a factor of
> of zero requires human processing)?
See above, pi example.
> > 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. ;)
>
> Coincidentally there was a blue moon the day I wrote that. ��
Yes, I remember thinking that when I read this message the first time,
but then I forgot. ;) Shame on me for taking on too much work at the
moment, which in turn, makes me take way too long to respond to emails.
Best regards,
Daniel
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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