On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum worlds, >>> although Everett didn't write about multiple worlds. Everett only >>> considered one world and wrote about the "relative state" of the observer >>> and the observed system. In some ways this is more fundamental because in >>> principle the "different worlds" of MWI can interfere with one another. >>> That they usually don't is a statistical result. >>> >>> ("Many worlds" is just a nice (and roughly accurate) description, >> like Big Bang (better than Small Hiss) or Black Hole (better than Very >> Faintly Glowing Region of Infinite Gravity :) >> >> I think that's an unfair criticism of Copenhagen. Deterministic theories >>> just push the problem back in time. Ultimately there is either an uncaused >>> event or an infinite past. So there is not great intellectual virtue in >>> rejecting uncaused events. Quantum mechanics is an interesting >>> intermediate case. It has randomness, but randomness that is strictly >>> limited and limited in such a way that it produces the classical world at a >>> statistical level. >>> >> >> The problem is pushed back onto whatever is considered fundamental. If >> there is an original event, it is only uncaused if it doesn't emerge >> naturally from (for example) the equations that are believed to describe >> the universe. One can say the same about an infinite past. >> >> Your own theory also introduces uncaused events, namely the computations >>> of a universal dovetailer. The whole idea of "everythingism" was inspired >>> by QM, but QM itself doesn't entail that everything happens. If you measure >>> a variable you only get eigenvalues of that variable - not every possible >>> value. If you measure it again you get the same eigenvalue again - not any >>> value. >>> >> >> I was given to believe that the computations of the UD aren't events, >> and that they simply exist within arithmetic as a logically necessary >> consequence of its existence. Did I get that wrong? >> >> >> I wouldn't say "wrong". It depends on whether you think "There exists a >> successor of 2." implies that 3 exists. Personally I think it is a >> confusion to say that a logical formula is satisfied by X is the same as >> saying X exists in the ontological sense. >> >> >> On the contrary, self-duplication explains the appearance of such >>> indeterminacy, without adding any further assumptions. >>> >> Well, the existence of self-duplication, even via Everett, is a >> further assumption. >> >> Surely the existence of duplication (rather than self-duplication) arises >> from the equations? So one has self-duplication as a consequence, to the >> same extent that one has it within ones own personal past? Or have I >> misunderstood that too? >> >> (Or are you just talking about the sort of assumptions we have to make >> all the time anyway?) >> >> Occam favors it. Your belief in "3)" substitutes a very simple >>> explanation by a call to a form of built-in-non-explainable magic. >>> >> No more magic than a UD. >> >> Why is the UD magic? (Is arithmetic magic?) >> >> >> It's hypothetically generating all possible worlds, but where is it? >> It's in Platonia. It's "the word made flesh." Sounds a lot more magical >> than "that atom decayed by potential tunneling just like the equations say." >> >> > > In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical reality than the > physical reality. An evil demon could be responsible for our belief in > atoms, and stars, and photons, etc., but it is may be impossible for that > same demon to give us the experience of factoring 7 in to two integers > besides 1 and 7. > > > But that's because we made up 1 and 7 and the defintion of factoring. > Their our language and that's why we have control of them. > > That's what Hilbert thought, but Godel showed he was wrong. > > So while Descartes could doubt physical reality, he could not doubt the > "unreality of arithmetically impossible experiences". > > > I don't think Descartes could doubt physical reality. > He did. It could have all be an illusion or a dream, as in the Matrix. There is no proof that your perceptions correspond to reality any more than the reality necessary to create your perceptions. > Even Bruno rejects solipism and that's just doubting the reality of other > people. I find it pretty easy to doubt that you can always add one more to > an integer. I think 10^10^10 + 1 may well equal 10^10^10 in most contexts. > I don't see the relevance of this to the fact that even a highly doubtful person (such as Descartes or yourself :-) ), can reason that his possible experiences are constrained by mathematical possibility (even if all his (or your) perceptions are created by an evil demon, a dream, or the matrix). Descartes gave up too quickly. Instead of concluding only that the only thing he could prove is that "he exists", he might have reasoned further that mathematical laws exist, and from there he could have proven the existence of the rest of the universe around him. > > > In that sense, arithmetic would in-part control possible experiences, > and is harder to doubt than the possibility that physics is constrains > experiences. Indeed, computationalism suggests this is true. An > appropriately programmed computer can generate any experience that can be > possibly experienced in any universe: our own "laws of physics" do not > constrain our possible experience whatsoever, > > > ?? They seem to constrain my experience of breathing under water and > flying to Mars. > Those represent constraints on physical possibilities, not experiences. With the right computer simulation you could experience breathing under water, or flying to mars, even flying there faster than light. Nothing in the laws of the physics of our universe prevents someone from having such an experience here in this universe. Of course, that experience would have no correspondence to reality, but the experience is still possible and can be implemented here. Just look at all the impossible scenarios that take place in our dreams. > > > so long as a Turing machine can be built within the laws of some > physical universe. > > > I know. That's your story and you're sticking to it. > Now you doubt that computers can be made in this universe? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
