Re: Quantum immortality

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/12/2019 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via
Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> Another argument that has been given here before
is that if quantum
> immortality is true, then we should expect to
see a number of people
> who are considerably older than the normal life
expectancy -- and we
> do not see people who are two or three hundred
years old. Even if the
> probabilities are very low, there have been an
awful lot of people
> born within the last 500 or so years -- some
must have survived on our
> branch if this scenario is true.

My argument was that each of us should find
ourselves to be much older
than even the oldest people we know.

That is probably the best single argument against
quantum immortality: if QI is true, then the measure
of our lifetime after one reaches a normal lifetime is
infinitely greater than the measure before age , say,
120 yr. So if one finds oneself younger than 120
years, QI is false, and if MWI is still considered to
be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
not imply QI.



Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On
an objective level it only decreases.


As Bruno would say, "you confuse the 1p with the 1pp." I am
talking about my personal measure of the number of years I
have lived. As I get older, the number of years I have lived
increases. If I live to 1000, I have lived more years between
100 and 1000 than between 1 and 100. This is arithmetic, after
all.

But this discussion has gone off the rails. It started as a
discussion of quantum immortality, and the arguments against
this notion, even in MWI. The arguments against QI that have
been advanced are that life-threatening events tend not to be
binary or quantum, but rather we enter a period of slow
decline, due to illness or other factors. Consequently, there
is no reason for us to expect to be immortal, even in MWI. The
other argument is that if QI is true, then you would expect to
be very old. This argument was advanced by Mallah (arXiv:
0905.0187) and has not been satisfactorily rebutted.


It is not simple arithmetic if you live to be very old that most
of your measure is in your older years if you take into account
all the copies. Suppose there are 10^100 copies of you under 100
years old and then all but one copy dies, but that one copy goes
on to live to 1000. If you did not know how old you were and you
had to guess given this information, then you would guess with
near certainty that you were under 100 years old. However, you
would also know with certainty that you would live to 1000, and
you would not notice anything weird happening as you approached
your 100th birthday.


The trouble with this argument is that you know that at least one copy 
of you will survive past 100 years (or past any age, for that matter). 
Given that you survive, the probability of survival is one. Taking 
account of all the other copies who die does not alter this fact. If 
you are all your copies, then your probability of survival under the 
assumption of QI is always one.


Your RSSA assumption is effectively a dualist model -- there is only 
one soul that makes you really you, and that soul goes at random into 
one and only one copy at any time. Then the chances that this 
soul-containing copy is the one that survives, does indeed decrease 
rapidly with age. But that is the wrong way to look at it -- there is 
no 'soul' that makes a copy you. On the MWI assumptions, every copy is 
'you', so since at least one copy always survives, 'you' will always 
survive. The number of years you survive past age 100 is indefinitely 
large, so you spend more time in those years, and you have probability 
one of getting there.


As I understand it the theory is that all these 'you's' on all the 
branches are potentially the 

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/12/2019 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 12:26, Alan Grayson > wrote:




On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
wrote:



On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5,
Philip Thrift wrote:



On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5,
Alan Grayson wrote:


https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/




Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one
world of quantum-stochastic processes. They are like
vampires, but instead of running away from sunbeams,
are running away from probabilities.

@philipthrift


This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens
have a paper on how supposedly the Born rule can be
derived from MWI  I have yet to read their paper, but
given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One
advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world
as a sort of quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This
nonlocal property might be useful for working with quantum
gravity,

I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete
unfortunately, where the two sets of quantum
interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and those that
are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision
procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof
is set with nonlocal hidden variables over the projective
rays of the state space. In effect there is an uncertainty
in whether the hidden variables localize extant
quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this
localization is the generation of information in a local
context from quantum nonlocality that is not extant, such
as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are then
auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within
the framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a
ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If I am right
the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the
intriguing question we can address is the nature of the
Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of
quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be
made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might
be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?

To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a
working system to understand QM foundations, is maybe
taking things too far. However, it is a part of some open
questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and
more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are
connected to the Born rule it makes for some interesting
things to think about.

LC


If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll
believes the many worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG


Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there
must exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is
frequently claimed by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT,
proven, or even plausibly argued.  What's the argument for such a
claim?


Given a sufficient number of trials, the probability that an event 
that can occur will occur approaches one.


That assumes identical trials.  A countably infinite set of universes 
could all be different.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51f44ca1-53aa-f0e6-4fbd-cdfbce0a63a6%40verizon.net.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:41 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
 everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if
> the
> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on
> our
> > branch if this scenario is true.
>
> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
> than even the oldest people we know.


 That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality:
 if QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
 lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
 So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
 still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
 not imply QI.

>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective
>>> level it only decreases.
>>>
>>
>> As Bruno would say, "you confuse the 1p with the 1pp." I am talking about
>> my personal measure of the number of years I have lived. As I get older,
>> the number of years I have lived increases. If I live to 1000, I have lived
>> more years between 100 and 1000 than between 1 and 100. This is arithmetic,
>> after all.
>>
>> But this discussion has gone off the rails. It started as a discussion of
>> quantum immortality, and the arguments against this notion, even in MWI.
>> The arguments against QI that have been advanced are that life-threatening
>> events tend not to be binary or quantum, but rather we enter a period of
>> slow decline, due to illness or other factors. Consequently, there is no
>> reason for us to expect to be immortal, even in MWI. The other argument is
>> that if QI is true, then you would expect to be very old. This argument was
>> advanced by Mallah (arXiv: 0905.0187) and has not been satisfactorily
>> rebutted.
>>
>
> It is not simple arithmetic if you live to be very old that most of your
> measure is in your older years if you take into account all the copies.
> Suppose there are 10^100 copies of you under 100 years old and then all but
> one copy dies, but that one copy goes on to live to 1000. If you did not
> know how old you were and you had to guess given this information, then you
> would guess with near certainty that you were under 100 years old. However,
> you would also know with certainty that you would live to 1000, and you
> would not notice anything weird happening as you approached your 100th
> birthday.
>

The trouble with this argument is that you know that at least one copy of
you will survive past 100 years (or past any age, for that matter). Given
that you survive, the probability of survival is one. Taking account of all
the other copies who die does not alter this fact. If you are all your
copies, then your probability of survival under the assumption of QI is
always one.

Your RSSA assumption is effectively a dualist model -- there is only one
soul that makes you really you, and that soul goes at random into one and
only one copy at any time. Then the chances that this soul-containing copy
is the one that survives, does indeed decrease rapidly with age. But that
is the wrong way to look at it -- there is no 'soul' that makes a copy you.
On the MWI assumptions, every copy is 'you', so since at least one copy
always survives, 'you' will always survive. The number of years you survive
past age 100 is indefinitely large, so you spend more time in those years,
and you have probability one of getting there.

Bruce

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTBi_o%2B6jtterG_19PHd%2BvuJjSvpsSStXuNZ2GDif-hYw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 9:12:04 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 12:26, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:

 On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>
>
>
>
> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper 
 on how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to 
 read 
 their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One 
 advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of 
 quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be 
 useful for working with quantum gravity,

 I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
 where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and 
 those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision 
 procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with 
 nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In 
 effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize 
 extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization 
 is the generation of information in a local context from quantum 
 nonlocality that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum 
 interprertations are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and 
 within the framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a 
 ψ-ontology, 
 and this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic 
 nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature 
 of 
 the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum 
 interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule 
 within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?

 To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system 
 to understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it 
 is a part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If 
 MWI, and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are 
 connected to the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think 
 about.

 LC

>>>
>>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
>>> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 
>>>
>>
>> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
>> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed 
>> by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly 
>> argued.  What's the argument for such a claim? 
>>
>
> Given a sufficient number of trials, the probability that an event that 
> can occur will occur approaches one. 
>  
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

For countable trials, it might arbitrarily approach, but never reach unity. 
But what if the possible number of trials are uncountable? AG 

>
>
> 
>  Virus-free. 
> www.avast.com 
> 
>  
> <#CAH=2ypXdYZWsDXvoifCV758zw=EA0iLXJU-1PYyeVay03_LdSA@mail.gmail.com_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/28e2b03e-baec-4515-a844-2fdb97672156%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
 > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
 > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
 > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
 > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
 > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on
 our
 > branch if this scenario is true.

 My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
 than even the oldest people we know.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality:
>>> if QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
>>> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
>>> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
>>> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
>>> not imply QI.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective
>> level it only decreases.
>>
>
> As Bruno would say, "you confuse the 1p with the 1pp." I am talking about
> my personal measure of the number of years I have lived. As I get older,
> the number of years I have lived increases. If I live to 1000, I have lived
> more years between 100 and 1000 than between 1 and 100. This is arithmetic,
> after all.
>
> But this discussion has gone off the rails. It started as a discussion of
> quantum immortality, and the arguments against this notion, even in MWI.
> The arguments against QI that have been advanced are that life-threatening
> events tend not to be binary or quantum, but rather we enter a period of
> slow decline, due to illness or other factors. Consequently, there is no
> reason for us to expect to be immortal, even in MWI. The other argument is
> that if QI is true, then you would expect to be very old. This argument was
> advanced by Mallah (arXiv: 0905.0187) and has not been satisfactorily
> rebutted.
>

It is not simple arithmetic if you live to be very old that most of your
measure is in your older years if you take into account all the copies.
Suppose there are 10^100 copies of you under 100 years old and then all but
one copy dies, but that one copy goes on to live to 1000. If you did not
know how old you were and you had to guess given this information, then you
would guess with near certainty that you were under 100 years old. However,
you would also know with certainty that you would live to 1000, and you
would not notice anything weird happening as you approached your 100th
birthday.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXHCsjA-Ra7Bi6FHmRt6X0hydPMgi5DqUhaQhZOwq%2B5Sw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 12:26, Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson
 wrote:
>
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>



 Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of
 quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of
 running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on
>>> how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read
>>> their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One
>>> advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of
>>> quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be
>>> useful for working with quantum gravity,
>>>
>>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately,
>>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and
>>> those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision
>>> procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with
>>> nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In
>>> effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize
>>> extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is
>>> the generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality
>>> that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum
>>> interprertations are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and
>>> within the framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a 
>>> ψ-ontology,
>>> and this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic
>>> nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of
>>> the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum
>>> interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule
>>> within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?
>>>
>>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system
>>> to understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it
>>> is a part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If
>>> MWI, and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are
>>> connected to the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think
>>> about.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many
>> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG
>>
>
> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must
> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed
> by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly
> argued.  What's the argument for such a claim?
>

Given a sufficient number of trials, the probability that an event that can
occur will occur approaches one.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXdYZWsDXvoifCV758zw%3DEA0iLXJU-1PYyeVay03_LdSA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 12:02:20 PM UTC-6, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> When the physicist says "The best answer we can give is that reality is a 
> vector in Hilbert space", it shows that he cannot be cured. 
>
> Evgenii
>

Not only that, but the vector physicists refer to can have many distinct 
representions -- that is, it's NOT unique -- so it CAN'T be claimed that it 
represents different possible states simultaneously. AG
 

> Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 06:45:41 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Grayson:
>
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea843338-0f93-4e94-a20a-aae1d62d8c73%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:


 https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
>>> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on 
>> how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read 
>> their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One 
>> advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of 
>> quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be 
>> useful for working with quantum gravity,
>>
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and 
>> those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision 
>> procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with 
>> nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In 
>> effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize 
>> extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is 
>> the generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality 
>> that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum 
>> interprertations are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and 
>> within the framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a 
>> ψ-ontology, 
>> and this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic 
>> nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of 
>> the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum 
>> interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule 
>> within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?
>>
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, 
>> and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to 
>> the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
> worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 
>

Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must 
exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed 
by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly 
argued.  What's the argument for such a claim? Morevover, I don't believe a 
universe of finite age, such as ours which everyone more or less agrees 
began some 13.8 BYA, can be spatially infinite. Here I'm referring to our 
bubble, not some infinite substratum from which it might have arose. AG 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f85775c7-7914-47e4-83eb-1142b1b58249%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

On that Evgenii, we do concur. Yet, big companies or big governments probably 
head to this guy's door, if they need something to ask?Now, that may not be a 
big deal unless he is contributing to the DoD? Those comprising this group have 
interesting mathematical & quantum and cosmological philosophy, but we are not 
so prominent. The thinkers here participate because they love these topics, but 
their immediate impacts are something far off, potentially. Now, for me, MWI is 
fun, in the sense of science fiction is fun--unless we can somehow do trade 
somehow between Earths?I will buy Carroll's book if only for this reason. "A 
hominid's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a multiverse for?" If he is 
absolutely wrong and we can prove it, then, very well, onward, to the World 
Series (Think FIFA World Cup).


-Original Message-
From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 2:15 pm
Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

I am not sure that Carroll could solve a practical problem. To solve 
something I would go to engineers. Evgenii

Am 12.09.2019 um 20:09 schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:
> And yet...when somebody has a problem in physics needing resolving, they 
> likely go to Professor Carroll and not many here. Possibly Standish from Aus, 
> or Bruno from The Heart of Europe, than anyone on this auguste mailing list. 
> Hilbert Space, De Sitter Space, it's probably the same (hypothesis!). It is 
> all phase space, sez the Swami.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 2:02 pm
> Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)
> 
> When the physicist says "The best answer we can give is that reality is a 
> vector in Hilbert space", it shows that he cannot be cured.
> Evgenii
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 06:45:41 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Grayson:
> https://www.wired.com/story/ sean-carroll-thinks-we-all- 
> exist-on-multiple-worlds/
> 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5bcd44b7-5a44-cdf1-1e7b-d868642ea621%40rudnyi.ru.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1203878323.6741629.1568337067803%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:45:22 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:


 https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
>>> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on 
>> how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read 
>> their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One 
>> advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of 
>> quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be 
>> useful for working with quantum gravity,
>>
>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
>> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and 
>> those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision 
>> procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with 
>> nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In 
>> effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize 
>> extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is 
>> the generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality 
>> that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum 
>> interprertations are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and 
>> within the framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a 
>> ψ-ontology, 
>> and this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic 
>> nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of 
>> the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum 
>> interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule 
>> within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?
>>
>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
>> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
>> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, 
>> and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to 
>> the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> QBism is not the dialectical opposite of MWI. This is:
>
> https://twitter.com/DowkerFay/status/1110683583570759680
>
> @philipthrift 
>

The MWI and this path integral interpretation are both  ψ-ontic and are 
thus not opposite.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I am not sure that Carroll could solve a practical problem. To solve 
something I would go to engineers. Evgenii


Am 12.09.2019 um 20:09 schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List:

And yet...when somebody has a problem in physics needing resolving, they likely 
go to Professor Carroll and not many here. Possibly Standish from Aus, or Bruno 
from The Heart of Europe, than anyone on this auguste mailing list. Hilbert 
Space, De Sitter Space, it's probably the same (hypothesis!). It is all phase 
space, sez the Swami.


-Original Message-
From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

When the physicist says "The best answer we can give is that reality is a vector in 
Hilbert space", it shows that he cannot be cured.
Evgenii

Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 06:45:41 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Grayson:
https://www.wired.com/story/ sean-carroll-thinks-we-all- 
exist-on-multiple-worlds/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5bcd44b7-5a44-cdf1-1e7b-d868642ea621%40rudnyi.ru.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

And yet...when somebody has a problem in physics needing resolving, they likely 
go to Professor Carroll and not many here. Possibly Standish from Aus, or Bruno 
from The Heart of Europe, than anyone on this auguste mailing list. Hilbert 
Space, De Sitter Space, it's probably the same (hypothesis!). It is all phase 
space, sez the Swami. 


-Original Message-
From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

When the physicist says "The best answer we can give is that reality is a 
vector in Hilbert space", it shows that he cannot be cured. 
Evgenii

Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 06:45:41 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Grayson:
https://www.wired.com/story/ sean-carroll-thinks-we-all- 
exist-on-multiple-worlds/

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6b78c67-5166-4046-9273-7d9c488941ed%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/456462732.6529712.1568311772697%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

When the physicist says "The best answer we can give is that reality is a 
vector in Hilbert space", it shows that he cannot be cured. 

Evgenii

Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 06:45:41 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Grayson:

>
> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6b78c67-5166-4046-9273-7d9c488941ed%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I prob'ly' smack yo face fo say'in dat! Dat's probability fo ya! Word! 


-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 5:20 am
Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)



On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
https://www.wired.com/story/ sean-carroll-thinks-we-all- 
exist-on-multiple-worlds/



Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of quantum-stochastic 
processes. They are like vampires, but instead of running away from sunbeams, 
are running away from probabilities.
@philipthrift-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e2c70ac-9f5b-4de2-a36c-fc9044e483ec%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1264838227.6581123.1568311159008%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
>> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on 
> how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read 
> their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One 
> advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of 
> quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be 
> useful for working with quantum gravity,
>
> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and 
> those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision 
> procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with 
> nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In 
> effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize 
> extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is 
> the generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality 
> that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations 
> are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the 
> framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and 
> this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic 
> nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of 
> the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum 
> interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule 
> within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?
>
> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, 
> and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to 
> the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>
> LC
>

If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the many 
worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/069c7b9b-af0e-4704-b88a-e93485dbcab5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:45:22 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
>> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on 
> how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read 
> their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One 
> advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of 
> quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be 
> useful for working with quantum gravity,
>
> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
> where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and 
> those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision 
> procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with 
> nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In 
> effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize 
> extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is 
> the generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality 
> that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations 
> are then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the 
> framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and 
> this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic 
> nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of 
> the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum 
> interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be made for the Born rule 
> within QuBism, which is what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?
>
> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
> understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
> part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, 
> and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to 
> the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.
>
> LC
>


QBism is not the dialectical opposite of MWI. This is:

https://twitter.com/DowkerFay/status/1110683583570759680

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5afc3ae-63c6-44ee-9775-999cf039da23%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>
>
>
>
> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>
> @philipthrift
>

This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper on 
how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI  I have yet to read 
their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One 
advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of 
quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be 
useful for working with quantum gravity,

I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete unfortunately, 
where the two sets of quantum interpretations that are ψ-epistemic and 
those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There is no decision 
procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof is set with 
nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state space. In 
effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables localize 
extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this localization is the 
generation of information in a local context from quantum nonlocality that 
is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. Quantum interprertations are 
then auxiliary physical axioms or postulates. MWI and within the framework 
of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a ψ-ontology, and this defines 
the Born rule. If I am right the degree of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. 
So the intriguing question we can address is the nature of the Born rule 
and its tie into the auxiliary postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a 
similar demonstration be made for the Born rule within QuBism, which is 
what might be called the dialectic opposite of MWI?

To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system to 
understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it is a 
part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If MWI, and 
more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are connected to the 
Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think about.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/70074e3b-c74d-4aab-bc04-420603fdfcec%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 3:20:46 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>>
>
>
>
> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.
>
> @philipthrift
>

I like that! You know, before QM, people could watch a horserace and infer 
that the probabilties of which horse would win, place, or show, would 
change dynamically in real time. When the race ended, no one wondered what 
happened to that dynamic probability distribution.  It was obvious it no 
longer applied, since the race was done! Today, the situation has become 
obscure and unintelligible, and like a religion, there's no apparent way to 
cure the true believers. AG

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/626f7d49-2490-4001-ace5-f2a292a6a8bd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
>



Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of 
quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of 
running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e2c70ac-9f5b-4de2-a36c-fc9044e483ec%40googlegroups.com.

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Well, I suppose we all will find out in the next view years regarding AI 
cooperation. My guess is the smarter these get, the more they will dovetail or 
fit in with human needs and wants. I sort of see these, after much development, 
to sort of become one, with the human species. Think of it as like the brain 
going beyond the amygdala and going cerebrum and cerebellum. Or, you got 
chocolate on my peanut butter, but you got peanut butter on my chocolate! Or, 
endosymbiosis-  http://bioscience.jbpub.com/cells/MBIO1322.aspxMaybe we get to 
be the emotional part of this new species? We get the graphene bodies, so 
useful for interstellar travel. 


-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 12:52 am
Subject: Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test



On 9/11/2019 9:33 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:43:40AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/9/2019 10:16 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:34:19PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
>>> List wrote:
 On 9/9/2019 6:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
> List wrote:
>> Why escape to space when there a lots of resources here?  An AI with
>> access to everything connected to the internet shouldn't have any
>> trouble taking control of the Earth.
> [...]
>
> You reason like human - "I will stay here because it is nice and I can
> have internet".
>
> [...]
>> Cooperation is one of our most important survival strategies.  Lone
>> human beings are food for vultures.
>>
>>  Humans in tribes rule the world.
>    
> This is just one of those godlike delusions I have written
> about. Either this or you can name even one such tribe. Hint: explain
> how many earthquakes and volcanic eruptions those rulers have
> prevented during last decade.

I only meant relative to other sentient beings.  Of course no one has 
changed the speed of light either and neither will a super-AI. My point 
is that cooperation is an inherent trait of humans, selected by 
evolution.  But an AI will not necessarily have that trait.

>
> [...]
>>> nice air of being godlike. Again, I guess AI will have no need for
>>> feeling like this, or not much of feelings at all. Feeling is
>>> adversarial to judgement.
>> I disagree.  Feeling is just the mark of value,  and values are
>> necessary for judgement, at least any judgment of what action to
>> take.
> I disagree. I can easily give something a value without feeling about
> it. Example: gold is just a yellow metal. I know other people value it
> a lot, so I might preserve it for trading, but it does not make very
> good knives. Highly impractical in the woods or for plowing
> fields. But it might be used for catching fish, perhaps. They seem to
> like swallowing little blinking things attached to a hook.

I was referring to fundamental values.  Of course many things, like gold 
and fish hooks, have instrumental value which derive from there 
usefulness in satisfying fundamental values, the ones that correlate 
with feelings.  If the AI has no fundamental values, it will have no 
instrumental ones too.

Brent

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fdccc63f-60ac-6644-adc4-60151b17a878%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2076974551.6314702.1568275265639%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Thanks, I will buy Carroll's book later today. I always liked Hugh Everett's 
MWI because it's excellent, in an emotionally-appealing way for us sci-fi fans. 
Beyond this. (kudos, to Bryce DeWiit  A. Wheeler as well!), I also see 
commercial possibilities with this $$. Like, what if it takes less energy to 
cross world lines, then it is to travel between stars? Carroll would recoil in 
horror at my premise, but, I still like the concept, if he and many other 
physicists roll their collective eyes, and walk away. For them, this is 
probably a wise idea!  I am not sure if Everett is correct on what triggers 
splits in the observer moment? Random choices, or black holes, or energy 
releases, or dips?? You buying a different coffee than you normally purchase? I 
like the trade aspects like buying spices from the Neanderthal Earth, EV129?? 


-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 12:45 am
Subject: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/
-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b9ee8443-27de-4136-8ab8-a6367a5bddae%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1170625110.6320100.1568274803661%40mail.yahoo.com.