RE: Request to form 'Social Contract' with SAI
Heh. Bruno, I continue to analyse my current (human) condition to try to find a way out of this mess (I'm not a happy bloke). Still considering many possibilities. Maybe I am misreading you here, but you sound pretty depressed. If so, don't just wait around hoping for things to get better, get help. I have been amazed at the results I have seen in people who simply get on the right meds. Or if meds aren't your thing, find somebody to talk to; get a therapist. It really can make a big difference. Again Marc, if you were just being a little dramatic my apologies, but I have had many clients who have been severely depressed and the worst thing is to do nothing and just hope it gets better. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:17 AM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Request to form 'Social Contract' with SAI On Oct 14, 3:39 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take care, trust yourself and kill all the SAI on the road, to paraphrase a well known Buddhist idea. Either you are sufficiently clever to understand the SAI arguments, showing you are already an SAI yourself, and your message is without purpose, or you are not, in which case, to keep soundness (by lobianity), you better be skeptical, (and not to abide so quick imo). Unless you want to loose your universality, and be a slave, a tool. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Heh. Bruno, I continue to analyse my current (human) condition to try to find a way out of this mess (I'm not a happy bloke). Still considering many possibilities. Given the possibility that super- intelligences do already (or will in the future) exist, there's a chance that a non-interference policy is being/will be pursued, but that there's a way to get their attention - it could be a simple matter of indicating that you are aware of the possibility and requesting to 'sign' a 'social contract'. Get in early now! ;) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!?
I think of time from the third person perspective as being simply a higher spatial dimension above 3 dimensional volume in the same way that 3 dimensional volume exists above 2 dimensional area. In other words it's really the same as the other dimensions. So your comment about 3 dimensional time is sort of right, but it is of course actually 4 dimensional. This means there are connections and relationships between points in this hyperspace that we can't imagine with our normal thought process because it is obviously something more than 3 dimensional volume. This 4 dimensional thing is eternal, and is the multiverse. Actually that is not even correct because it implies the passage of an infinite amount of time. Time is ultimately the relationships between things and how those relationships change. So for the entire multiverse it exists outside of time, or more accurately time exists as a part of it so it does not make sense to discuss the whole in the context of time. From the first person point of view the sum is greater than the parts. No individual frame of reference creates an observer moment because it obviously takes the passage of some time (passage of time being another way of saying a string of individual universe frames in the first person point of view). Therefore the illusion of time passing and moving in one direction is simply a result of the nature of consciousness. Consciousness involves linear thought process and we of course only seem to experience one outcome as you follow the line of existence of the SAS (that acronym used to be used a lot around here!) through the multiverse. From the 3rd person perspective, the existence of the SAS is a 4 dimensional space in this diagram (covering its existence in every universe it is described in), but again from its perspective on the diagram it is a one dimensional line through points in the 4 dimensional hyperspace it existed. This is of course its self-perceived time line. This idea may give us a theory as to the total information capacity of the multiverse, which may not be infinite. It may also explain the holographic principal, as suggested by Colin Bruce a few years ago. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:08 PM To: Everything List Subject: An idea to resolve the 1st Person/3rd person division mystery - Coarse graining is the answer!? Been thinking about Bruno's often talked 1st person/3rd Person division. Had a series of insights that seem to connect up to some ideas of my own. Essentially my idea resolves around 'coarse graining' and the possibility that there is more than one valid way to define causality. On this and other lists I've often talked about the idea that there is more than one sort of time and discussed ideas relating to 3 dimensional time. But it was just vague speculation. Now my early intuitions have crystallized somewhat. It seems to me that 'coarse graining' could provide a means for time to 'stratify' into different levels. Now let me elaborate a little. Coarse graining is the 'level of detail' at which we observe reality. If we observe reality 'with a magnifying glass' as it were, we see lots of details. As we 'zoom out' and observe more higher level general features of reality, detailed information is lost. The question is: Is it really true that the higher level descriptions of reality are completely *reducible* to the lower level descriptions of reality? (See for instance 'Non-reductive physicalism'). The idea here is that 'the higher level' dsecriptions come about because of coarse graining and that there are features of these higher level descriptions that are not completely reducible to the lower level descriptions. Now In UML (Unified Modelling Language), there seems to be an implicit 'stratification' into three different levels of description. The first level of description is the 'State Model' - here only the most general (class level) properties of something are given. The second level of description is the 'Operational Model' - the functional properties of a system are what the system is actually doing externally. (ie the systems actions on the external world). But I noticed that this level of description involves more detail - the 'coarse graining' level has changed - we are 'zooming in' on the details so to speak. Finally, the third level of description is the 'State Change Model' - here we 'zoom in' on the internal details of the causal state changes in the system. Big idea: these three levels of description in UML could correspond directly to 'three different levels' in the real world - from which could be derived three different definitions of time arising from coarse graining! In other words, time is stratified into three different levels. Here they are: State Model time:Evolution of the QM wave function: 'branching' of MWI tree (high level)
RE: The Meaning of Life
Danny wrote: To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? JM: I suppose 'our intelligence' is part of 'us' and we are part of the nature of reality (whatever that may be, god, or existence, or...). My grandparents had a cellar with a trap door to descend, a maid-girl came crying that the door does not open. As it turned out: she was standing on it when trying to lift it (parable for us understanding 'all' we are part of). Bruno asked: God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? JM: whatever WE decide is our restrictive opinion. Bruno accepted that 'we' are 'god' so mu answer to the question is: NO, I as god do not. I consider QM a product of the product (etc) of that 'reality' we try to assign to it. (Sorry,Bruno, I do not start from 'numbers' to build up the existence. So far they stayed unidentified/able upon the many questions I (and others) asked. They still seem to be - as Bohm said - products of the human thinking. (See above: product of the product of the pr...etc.) I think I agree with you on this. However, numbers are ultimately representations of information. And it seems possible, perhaps probable, that everything can be reduced to information. As with most other things, maybe it is just a matter of perspective. Bruno: It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. JM: Build, or think about it? (Alice, the builder?) Bruno: ...I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. JM: I like the translation into idea. It implies that an 'idea' cannot be responsible for appearances we think to receive in our mind. Appearances are just that. Our - if you prefer - mind's interpretation of 'something' - reality. Still: human thinking. Question: which one of us (humans) CAN think with anything else than a human mind? If we accept Bruno's we are god then it is a human god. Not capable of 'building' the existence from the existing existence. (Cf: trapdoor) Danny: ...If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. JM: If the answer is 'no' or anything, it IS as well. If somebody 'believes' in a personal relationship with any god-phantom halucination based on ANY selective hearsay assumption, you cannot make him accept (substitute) a scientific' scrutiny. (I may elaborate on selective, hearsay, and assumption, if I must). I disagree and think you misunderstood the point of my original post. I dont really have time to get into it in detail now, but I was really trying to get outside of any faith-based aspect of the question. Perhaps the word God should not be used. The question I guess boiled down to its essence is can you have an ensemble theory of any kind (everything exists) that does not end up having intelligence playing an interesting role in the process. For future reference, when I refer to God in a post I will not be referring to anything relating to personal relationships (in the general understood sense that I think you meant) or hallucinations, but will be referring very specifically to an entity capable of emulating or creating in one manner or another the universe we observe, either from a 3rd person viewpoint or from the 1st person viewpoint. The question is can you have ensemble theories without having these entities, and if so, what assumptions do you have to make about our underlying reality (or the ensemble theory) to avoid them. I dont see those types of questions as being exclusive of some type of tentative scientific scrutiny, but I guess you do or perhaps you thought I meant something else when I said God (despite my defining the term in the original post). It may be that I just totally dont understand you John. To be honest I more than occasionally have a difficult time understanding what you are conveying in your posts. Danny * I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of assumption Bruno was mentioning in the last sentence. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? To avoid God are we back to some kind
RE: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. God has to choose only among QM universes? Does that God obey QM Eself? Bruno, as a starting point, I concede that discussion of things occurring outside the quantum-mechanical multiverse is metaphysical. Certainly other realities can be discussed (Tegmark, and for that matter the UD in the plenitude), but for the purposes of the question I was specifically limiting the subject to the creation of the type of universe we observe, because we are having to work off the laws of physics we know to attempt and answer the question, and the issue is the creation of what we observe, not other realities. So its not that God has to choose QM universes, its that Im only interested in whether an entity capable of creating QM universes (whatever you call it) is an inevitable result of an assumed ensemble theory. Of course, as I described in the original post, the entity does not have to actually create QM universes necessarily. It would achieve the same effect as to observers if it simply understood how to emulate brain states of observers that existed in QM universes. To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? We cannot, knowingly, emulate a first person in any third person way. For example we can emulate perfectly both the comp and the quantum indeterminacy .. up to the measurement procedure, which can still be emulate but only by emulating the observer himself. But this can be done with any classical or quantum universal machine, but then only serendipitously. I prefer translate the primitive physical idea as the idea that there is a primitive physical world which is responsible for appearances. But this already contradict the comp hypothesis (for example by the UDA argument, but you can also look at Plotinus or Proclus). That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? It is impossible to build a universal *prover* or knower. But we can build universal classical or quantum constructor or computer. Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? Neither math nor physics prohibit this. Math only prohibit universal machine prover or knower. How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesnt it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? Sure. But why? The UD is needed in an argument. Real platonic UDs are enough for the rest. Note that this can and should be tested. If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. You are quite fuzzy about God, and your basic assumptions. Do you assume a *primitive* physical universe? Ill be happy to hear where Im wrong on all this. Please be kind, Ive been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while! No problem, but you could be clearer about your assumption, or I am perhaps missing something. Thanks for your responses Bruno, Ill respond as to my assumptions when I have more time. Danny Bruno Danny Mayes On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message
RE: The Meaning of Life
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical universe. To avoid God are we back to some kind of primitive physical idea that there is something about the nature of reality that will forever prohibit intelligence from emulating it? That it is impossible even in theory to build a kind of universal quantum constructor? Or is the idea one that physics will forever prohibit intelligence from acquiring the resources necessary to achieve such a feat? How can you have everything, but not have something capable of creating everything? If you assume for instance the UD in the plenitude (no intelligent action required), doesn't it eventually describe intelligence with access to infinite or near infinite resources capable of creating an artificial UD? If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. I'll be happy to hear where I'm wrong on all this. Please be kind, I've been away from these sorts of discussions for quite a while! Danny Mayes On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value. The real problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the first place (other than the so-called irrefutable first person: It's all about me). Why should there be? Values are relative to people. Love is our word. We invented it to describe what we feel. Having some Platonic form of LOVE out there is superfluous. You're just making up a requirement for the really real ding-an-sich so that you can say God provides it. You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating experience. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
Which approximates my ideas on the nature of reality and the possible role of intelligence. (MARTIN REES:) This is a really good time to be a cosmologist, because in the last few years some of the questions we've been addressing for decades have come into focus. For instance, we can now say what the main ingredients of the universe are: it's made of 4% atoms, about 25% dark matter, and 71% mysterious dark energy latent in empty space. That's settled a question that we've wondered about, certainly the entire 35 years I've been doing cosmology. We also know the shape of space. The universe is 'flat'in the technical sense that the angles of even very large triangles add up to 180 degrees. This is an important result that we couldn't have stated with confidence two years ago. So a certain phase in cosmology is now over. But as in all of science, when you make an advance, you bring a new set of questions into focus. And there are really two quite separate sets of questions that we are now focusing on. One set of questions addresses the more 'environmental' side of the subjectwe're trying to understand how, from an initial Big Bang nearly 14 billion years ago, the universe has transformed itself into the immensely complex cosmos we see around us, of stars and galaxies, etc.; how around some of those stars and planets arose; and how on at least one planet, around at least one star, a biological process got going, and led to atoms assembling into creatures like ourselves, able to wonder about it all. That's an unending questto understand how the simplicity led to complexity. To answer it requires ever more computer modeling, and data in all wavebands from ever more sensitive telescopes. Another set of questions that come into focus are the following: Why is the universe expanding the way it is? Why does it have the rather arbitrary mix of ingredients? Why is it governed by the particular set of laws which seem to prevail in it, and which physicists study? These are issues where we can now offer a rather surprising new perspective. The traditional idea has been that the laws of nature are somehow unique; they're given, and are 'there' in a platonic sense independent of the universe which somehow originates and follows those laws. I've been puzzled for a long time about why the laws of nature are set up in such a way that they allow complexity. That's an enigma because we can easily imagine laws of nature which weren't all that different from the ones we observe, but which would have led to a rather boring universelaws which led to a universe containing dark matter and no atoms; laws where you perhaps had hydrogen atoms but nothing more complicated, and therefore no chemistry; laws where there was no gravity, or a universe where gravity was so strong that it crushed everything; or the lifetime was so short that there was no time for evolution. It always seemed to me a mystery why the universe was, as it were, 'biophilic'why it had laws that allowed this amount of complexity. To give an analogy from mathematics, think of the Mandelbrot Set; there's a fairly simple formula, a simple recipe that you can write down, which describes this amazingly complicated pattern, with layer upon layer of structure. Now you could also write down other rather similar-looking recipes, similar algorithms, which describe a rather boring pattern. What has always seemed to me a mystery is why the recipe, or code, that determined our universe had these rich consequences, just as the algorithms of the Mandelbrot set rather than describing something rather boring, in which nothing as complicated as us could exist. For about 20 years I've suspected that the answer to this question is that perhaps our universe isn't unique. Perhaps, even, the laws are not unique. Perhaps there were many Big Bangs which expanded in different ways, governed by different laws, and we are just in the one that has the right conditions. This thought in some respect parallels the way our concept of planets and planetary systems has changed. People used to wonder: why is the earth in this rather special orbit around this rather special star, which allows water to exist or allows life to evolve? It looks somehow fine-tuned. We now perceive nothing remarkable in this, because we know that there are millions of stars with retinues of planets around them: among that huge number there are bound to be some that have the conditions right for life. We just happen to live on one of that small subset. So there's no mystery about the fine-tuned nature of the earth's orbit; it's just that life evolved on one of millions of planets where things were right. It now seems an attractive idea that our Big Bang is just one of many: just as our earth is a planet that happens to have the right conditions for life, among the many many planets that exist, so our universe, and our Big Bang, is the one out of many which happens to allow
RE: Theory of Nothing available
I have purchased the book as well in PDF, and while I also have not had time to read much of it, skimming through it for an overview I can highly recommend it to anyone who regularly reads the everything list as it thoroughly covers so many of the topics discussed here. Congrats Professor! From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Norman Samish Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Theory of Nothing available - Original Message - From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Prof. Standish, Congratulations on publishing what is, at least so far,a fascinating book! I particularly appreciate thatyouhavetaken pains to make it intelligible to non-specialists. I'm looking forward to perusing it. I bought the PDF version from http://www.booksurge.comand they allowed an immediate download. Thanks and best wishes, Norman Samish I'm pleased to announce that my book Theory of Nothing is now for sale through Booksurge and Amazon.com. If you go to the Booksurge website (http://www.booksurge.com, http://www.booksurge.co.uk for Brits and http://www.booksurge.com.au for us Aussies) you should get the PDF softcopy bundled with the hardcopy book, so you can start reading straight away, or you can buy the softcopy only for a reduced price. The prices are USD 16 for the hardcopy, and USD 7.50 for the softcopy. In the book, I advance the thesis that many mysteries about reality can be solved by connecting ideas from physics, mathematics, computer science, biology and congitive science. The connections flow both ways - the form of fundamental physics is constrained by our psyche, just as our psyche must be constrained by the laws of physics. Many of the ideas presented in this book were developed over the years in discussions on the Everything list. I make extensive references into the Everything list archoives, as well as more traditional scientific and philosophical literature. This book may be used as one man's synthesis of the free flowing and erudite discussions of the Everything list. Take a look at the book. I should have Amazon's search inside feature wokring soon. In the meantime, I have posted a copy of the first chapter, which contains a precis of the main argument, at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/ToN-chapter1.pdf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Fermi's Paradox
Bringing this thread back to the original subject, I am currently reading Lonely Planets by David Grinspoon which covers all aspects of astrobiology including Fermi's Paradox. I recommend it. Bruno, you mentioned a few days ago that encryption or compression was an interesting thought, but you weren't sure if all aliens would try to avoid having us detect them. I think any advanced society would use a highly efficient encryption and/or compression system in their communications regardless of whether they thought the communication would be detected by someone else. Most data uploaded and downloaded over the internet is compressed, and it only stands to reason more advanced technology would allow far more data transmission through advanced compression techniques. Therefore, I don't suspect we will intercept alien radio signals anytime soon unless the aliens are intentionally trying to signal us. Also, I highly doubt that radio telescopes are the ultimate form of communication in the universe. It seems almost impossible to imagine that we would go from deliver information via a man on a horse to the final ultimate communication method in less than one century. Aliens may use laser pulses, or more likely, something we can not even imagine to communicate. As a final thought on this, I wanted to mention a theory of evolution that I read about a few years ago that invokes QM and the MWI to explain how the first self-replicator came to be against unimaginable odds. The idea was presented in Quantum Evolution, written by Johnjoe McFadden, and (very generally summarizing here) basically argued that even given all the time that passed and all the opportunities that would have been provided on a global scale, the odds against a self-replicator forming are so staggeringly large that it is still difficult to explain through standard theory. He argues something along the lines that peptides formed in carbon microtubes that would have been sufficient to cut off the peptides from the outside world, prevent decoherence, and allow a superposition of the peptide. Then, when the peptide experienced decoherence, one in 20^32 universes would have a self-replicating peptide. Of course, invoking the anthropic principle, we are in one of those very rare universes. A consequence of this is that alien life would be pretty much nonexistent in OUR universe. Other planets suitable for life would have life in other branches of the multiverse, but the quantum selection effects would make the separate evolution of life in the same brach of the multiverse highly unlikely. Danny Mayes -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 9:59 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Fermi's Paradox Brent, Faith usually refers to some belief independent of evidence. I guess we have a serious problem of terminology. Faith without evidence is bad faith or perhaps better blind faith. I was meaning faith in truth. (Although faith in your 1-self works also in my setting). I cannot define truth,(nor your 1-self) but I can argue that faith in truth leads to modesty, even in religious affair. I would say Fundamentalism is even a typical symptom of blind faith. It appears when, sometimes driven by despairing events, some people (collectively or privately) loose faith in truth, or in themselves, and then jumps on any populist herzats concocted by mad, ignorant, or dishonest entity. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Bruno Marchal wrote: And then, well, yes, it could. And from Zeta's behavior, a whole many world interpretation of number theory, through a wavy approach to numbers (like Ramanujan's one) would be possible. Primes could even plausibly justified some single universe selection (if they are perverse enough ?!?!) Bruno Could you expound on this a little more? Both the MWI through a wavy approach to numbers, and the point about primes are possibly new concepts to me. Or maybe you're talking about things I am familiar with in an unfamiliar way. I'm not sure... Danny --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fw: Numbers
Russell,
Thats a good summary. However, my issue with your conclusion is this:
even if I accept that a "machine" or a "prime mover" is not necessary,
such explanations are still part of the plenitude and therefore part of
reality. So if everything is reducible to math or information, even if
you are correct that our reality can exist independent of these
third-party explanations, such explanations still exist as part of the
totality of everything that can exist. What this would mean to me is
that the reality I experience may occur naturally as a consequence of
the logical bootstrapping you describe, but it would also be occuring
through any number of artificial creations at the same time. These
realities overlap and it would be meaningless for me to try and say
whether the reality I am experiencing now is one or the other- it is
both.
If you accept MWI or the plenitude, there are really only a few ways to
avoid the above argument. First, you could argue that our reality is
not reducible to computations or math or information, and therefore it
is not possible to artificially create our reality. Obviously, you and
Marchal do not make this argument. Second, you could argue that the
creation of our universe requires some kind of infinite computation,
and therefore the ability to artificially create it will forever lie
beyond the means of intelligent beings. However, I have always
believed there are a number of problems with this argument, which I'll
avoid right now. Third, I guess you could argue that the reproduction
of our universe to the point of emulation may require some kind of
knowledge that would never be obtainable. Again, if you accept that
everything is reducible to math, then everything should be ultimately
understandable at least in theory.
I may accept your bootstrapping argument, but the plenitude is going to
also logically bootstrap other creations, such a Tiplers Omega Point,
into existence which my reality is a subroutine of. The fact is our
reality is by and large pretty simple to describe. I'm thinking we are
a pretty run of the mill program in the plenitude...
Danny
Russell Standish wrote:
This is the way I put the argument in my upcoming book. You can also
read the Universal Dovetailer Argument in Bruno Marchal's SANE04
paper.
\item That a description logically capable of observing itself is
enough to bootstrap itself into existence. Let me speak to this by
means of an example: The C programming language is a popular
language for computer applications. To convert a program written in
C into machine instructions that can execute on the computer, one
uses another program called a compiler. Many C compilers are
available, but a popular compiler is the GNU C compiler, or gcc. Gcc
is itself a C language program, you can download the program source
code from http://www.gnu.org, and compile it yourself, if you
already have a working C compiler. Once you have compiled gcc, you
can then use gcc to compile itself. Thus gcc has bootstrapped itself
onto your computer, and all references to any preexisting compiler
forgotten.
What I'm tryng to say here is that the description is a complete
specification of a conscious being, when interpreted (observed) by
the conscious being. There may have been an initial interpreter
(conscious or not) to bootstrap the original conscious being. It
matters not which interpreter it is --- any suitable one will do. If
{\em computationalism} \S\ref{computationalism} is correct, any
universal Turing machine will suffice. In fact since the 3rd person
world has to be a timeless {\em ideal} structure, it is not
necessary to actually run the initial interpreter. The logical
possibility of a conscious observer being able to instantiate itself
is sufficient in a timeless Plenitude of all possibilities. Thus we
close the ontology of the bitstring Plenitude, and find an answer
to Stephen Hawking's question ``What breathes fire into the
equations''\cite[p. 174]{Hawking88}. Paraphrasing the words of
Pierre-Simon Laplace to Napoleon Bonaparte, we have no need of a
hypothesis of a concrete reality\cite{Marchal98}.
I appreciate that some can never do this ontological closure, that for
them there must always be a machine somewhere doing the running. This
is reminiscient of those people for whom there must be a prime mover
to start the universe off.
I know that Bruno says he's eliminated the "extravagent hypothesis",
but really I think he's shown that it is unnecessary, and can be pared
away by Occam's razor, not that it is contradictory.
Cheers
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:37:51PM -0800, Norman Samish wrote:
Are you saying that a tape of infinite length, with infinite digits, is not
Turing emulable?
I don't understand how the 'compiler theorem' makes a 'concrete' machine
unnecessary. I agree that the tape can contain an encoding of the Turing
machine - as well as anything else that's
Re: belief, faith, truth
Bruno, Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives insight into why the most elegant or simplest explanations of observations in nature tend to be the correct explanations. My earlier suggestion regarding the popularity of your ideas was not intended to be a criticism. To the extent I understand you I find myself in agreement with many of your ideas. Regarding the view of everything as mathematical object, it seems this has an element of truth to me, but it also seems to possibly miss something important. As Hawking said, what is it that breathes fire into the equations? Perhaps a better view is the reduction of everything to information, versus mathematical object, as some have suggested in recent publications? A quick search for a definition of information came up with this: 1) that which reduces uncertainty. (Claude Shannon); 2) that which changes us. (Gregory Bateson). Interesting in this context, maybe, to look at it that way. The view of everything in the context of information perhaps leaves open the role of intelligence/consciousness in a fundamental explanation. Danny Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, If I remember correctly Robert Rosen does not accept Church Thesis. This explains some fundamental difference of what we mean respectively by "machine". I use the term for digitalizable machine, which, with Church thesis, is equivalent with "programs", or with anything a computer can imitate. With Church thesis all computer (universal machine) are equivalent and can emulate (simulate perfectly) each other. The machine I talk about are mathematical object in Platonia. I never use machine in the materialist sense of something having some body to act in a environment, because my goal is to find out why immaterial machine in Platonia are confronted with stable appearance of materiality. I hope this can help a little bit, Best, Bruno Le 17-fvr.-06, 21:27, John M a crit : snip Now a silly point: after so much back and forth about 'machines' and our best efforts to grasp what we should understand, would it be asking too much to re-include a BRIEF identification about the way YOU use the term? (Never mind Loeb). It would help me for sure. I could not decipher it from the quoted URLs (yours included), snip Lately on the Rosen-list Robert Rosen's 'machine' term got so mixed up that my understanding what I developed some 5-6 years ago got mixed up. It is different from yours, which just adds to the confusion. Yours is also going on over at least 2-3 years. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: belief, faith, truth
I doubt Marchal's ideas will be made widely known or popularized in the foreseeable future. The problem isn't with the name of his theory, or with any problem with Bruno per se beyond this: There doesn't seem to be an easily reducible way to summarize the theory in a manner that is digestible to anyone beyond the highly specialized in similar fields. I certainly understand the basics of some of his ideas, but when it gets into all his logical analysis I just have never found myself willing to devote myself to the time required to really get into the detail of where he is coming from. And I would consider myself highly interested in these topics and at least reasonably intelligent. Even something as mundane as the MWI (to this group at least) runs into a brickwall when presented to the layperson. You should see the conversations I have with my wife. Tell people everything is made of strings. Or space and time can be warped and curved. They may not understand the science and math behind it at all, but at least you are speaking their language. The world is not ready for his ideas. Even for the most part the world of scientists in my opinion. Danny Benjamin Udell wrote: Hi, Bruno, You're tending -- too selectively, arbitrarily -- to try to go by what was meant by words many hundreds and even some thousands of years ago. Original or early meanings can be very illuminating, but a lot has happened since then, and there is some degree of _stare decisis_ in these matters. Words like "property" (originally, a non-essential differentia, i.e., an idiosyncrasy) and "physics" (which meant "pertaining to growth, especially to plants as growths," as in _phyton_, "plant") could not withstand the standard which you apply. And it's best if you seem to prioritize your theory much, much higher than you prioritize the correcting of wrongs which you believe to have been done in theologically related politics over a thousand years ago. And you can't simultaneously do that and justify the use of the word "theology" as the correction of an ancient wrong and restoration of the original, legitimate meaning. People just don't care _that_ much about pedigree or ancient politic ! s. And if you don't really care that much either, but are basically just seeking a justification, it's good to pick one which will bear up under the weight which you place on it, so that you don't give the appearance of over-prioritizing such ancient occurrences. And if you do actually care that much, then you should consider whether you care about your machine theory even more. It's good to give your intended audience the sense that you share understand their concerns and are familiar with the same intellectual world as they are. Your best arguments on terminology all seem founded in the present, e.g., the vagueness of the word "metaphysics," plus its causing opprobrium among scientists. However, if its causing opprobrium among scientists is a sufficient objection, then the opprobrium which the word "theology" will cause among scientists is a sufficient objection too. The opprobrium would likely be even greater, and the objection, therefore, that much stronger. Add to that, the opprobrium which would be caused by your use of the word "theology" among religious people generally in proportion as your theory were to gain fame or notoriety. What will they say? Worst-case scenario: They'll say and believe that you're founding a religion of worship of some Big Machine in the Sky. Imagine having myriad academic people and highly religious people united, as strange bedfellows, against you, and declaring against that which they call the nightmarish bastard offspring of a shotgun wedding between religion and science. Even Romeo's Juliet's circumstances were less forbidding. Of course lots of people have startling and evocative theories, deriving physics from various abstract considerations. The odds of your particular theory's becoming famous seem small to a comparatively ignorant outsider like me. Yet, if you have confidence in the persuasiveness of yourself your theory, then you should think very carefully before actually naming your theory as a new and scientifically based competitor in the religious field, and subjecting your theory, your intentions, and yourself to wild caricatures which people will "take as gospel" and spread as gospel and which will form the basis of their dispositions to act in regard to you if the occasion ever arises or is made to arise. Now, "metaphysics" and "theology" both seem like bad ideas for names, given the intellectual climate. Nevertheless, between the two, I think metaphysics is preferable, for the reasons that I've stated here elsewhere. As to the meaning of "metaphysics," the biggest problem is the number of people, for whom it is synonomous with "supernatural issues," in languages other than English (I'm told that such is the primary meaning of the Spanish "metafisica."). Not much that one can do about
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Norman Samish wrote: Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is Actually, with all due respect to John, I failed to see how his original message (below) in any way illustrated "how ridiculous" the concept of heaven is. It may suggest that it is inconceivable that we could live for eternity leading anything like the life we know now, but his points aren't in the slightest pursuasive to me. I think the problem is a lack of imagination. Why would I have to choose to spend the afterlife with a certain spouse. I would assume the ties that bind us together here probably wouldn't apply. Why would I need to choose a body to be in that matched something from this earlier stage? I'll readily concede all of this is pure speculation, and so I'll just stop here and say that I think assumptions that an afterlife would be ridiculous is as much speculation as assumptions in a specific afterlife experience. - and no, I don't think heaven, hell, etc., are even remotely likely. I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead, never again to be congnizant. Now this statement is fraught with all kinds of issues and problems for me. Clearly you do not accept the QTI. No problem there. I've never really sold myself on that either. But if it is true that our focus for understanding should be on the first person, is there any meaning in saying you are dead "never again" to be aware? Isn't it just crazy speculation on your part that anything is continuing? And even if we accept there is some "reality" or "truth" to the world "out there"- the objective appearing environment that we seem to interact in- are you saying we are to assume that it will continue for ever and ever, but never replicate your experiences that you had in your life? Or perhaps we should assume that it should end at some point, and that there will never be another multiverse. Was all of this a one time deal? If so, how do you explain such a "miracle" without invoking some intelligence. How can something (big bang) happen only once in all of existence and be a natural phenomenon? It seems to me that at least from a perspective, the "block multiverse" view makes sense. It must exist eternally- I just can't wrap my mind around a "pre-existence" era or a "post existence" era. A careful examination of time does seem to suggest that, as D. Deutsch says, "different times are just special cases of different universes," each existing eternally from at least some perspective. I'm not so sure that there are yes/no answers to many of the questions that we ask. Even a question such as "is there a god" may have an answer that depends on your location in time or in the multiverse. If it is ever possible in the future to replicate my experiences on a computer through artificial intelligence, and the AI me asks the question, then obviously the answer should be yes. But perhaps there really was a natural, fundamental reality in which the original me existed in which the answer would be no. Or take a Tipler-like theory that has the universe evolving to the point that it can replicate or emulate itself. The question "is there a god" at the point that a universal computer exists would be yes, while the question at some prior point would be at best "unknown." I do not want to toss out there there is fundamental truth, fundamental reality of some nature, but any questions going to the underlying nature of existence seems to not easily lend itself to yes/no answers. Is there a fundamental "realness" to the physical world, or is this all a "machine dream."? Why isn't it both, depending on where you are at? Now some would accuse of speculation here, but on close inspection it seems I'm only choosing one form of speculation over another. Does this mean science is pointless? Absolutely not. Science opens great doors of understanding in, for instance, describing how a description of the multiverse fits observable data. However, I am simply choosing not to close doors in the absence of proof against. The thing I'm agnostic about (defining "agnostic" as "without knowledge") is whether an infinitely powerful God is reponsible for the universe we see. And if this God exists, why? And where did IT come from? Despite arguments I have made previously, I would say I most closely fit the agnostic description for God as well. I certainly do not believe in a God separate and apart from our existence that "created" the universe. Any answer for me will be some form of a self explanatory, or bootstrapping concept in which God and all of existence are really one in the same. I must admit I am partial to a Tipler like theory in which the universe evolves to the point that it can create itself. Then again you are left without a yes-no answer. Does it even make sense to ask whether the universe evolved until it was able to create its creator, or whether God existed first? Its a
Re: belief, faith, truth
The easy answer for you, John, is that given an infinite afterlife, an intelligent being would probably experience everything that it is possible to experience. Heck, eventually I'd probably even get around to checking out what life as John M was all about. Danny Mayes John M wrote: Norman: just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife: to sing the pius chants for just 30,000 years by 'people' in heaven with Alzheimers, arthritis, in pain and senility? Or would you choose an earlier phase of terrestrial life for the introduction in heaven: let us say: the fetal age? or school-years with the mentality of a teenager? Would you love spouse No 1,2,or 3? Would you forget about the biggest blunder you did and regretted all your life? Or would you prefer the eternal brimstone-burning (what a waste in energy) without a painkiller? I did not ask about your math, how many are involved over the millennia? I asked a Muslim lately, what the huris are and what the female inhabitants of heaven get? An agnostic has to define what he does 'not' know, hasn't he? Just as an atheist requires a god 'not' to believe in. We are SOOO smart! Have a good day John M --- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if there is no God, those that decide to have faith, and have the ability to have faith, in a benign God have gained quite a bit. They have faith in an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over evil, etc. Without this faith, life for many would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a zero. If there is a God, there is an after life and they get infinity. So how can they lose? Maybe Pascal's Wager deserves more consideration. Norman Samish ~~ - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Even within the context that Pascal intended it is fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and there is no god, you have given up freedom of thought, you have given up responsibility for your own morals and ethics, you have denied yourself some pleasures of the mind as well as pleasures of the flesh. It's a bad bargain. Brent Meeker The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth. --- H. L. Mencken Stathis Papaioannou wrote: That's right: if you believe in the Christian God and are wrong, the real God (who may be worshipped by an obscure group numbering a few dozen people, or by aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and may punish you. An analogous situation arises when creationists demand that the Biblical version of events be taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools: if we are to be fair, the creation myths of every religious sect should be taught. - Stathis Papaioannou On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36:46AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: [Incidently, can you see the logical flaw in Pascal's Wager as described above?] I always wondered why it should be the Christian account of God and Heaven that was relevant.
Re: belief, faith, truth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and die... Tom Thats funny stuff. And true! Danny Mayes
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Danny Mayes writes: I haven't participated in the list in a while, but I try to keep up with the discussion here and there as time permits. I personally was raised a fundamentalist Baptist, but lost most of my interest in that religion when I was taught at 9 years old that all the little kids in Africa that are never told about Jesus Christ go to Hell. Even at 9, I knew that wasn't something I was going to be buying. Who wants to believe in a God that cruel? Even without the problematic cruel creator, I have always been to oriented toward logic and proof to just accept stuff on faith. I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like something to be true, or not to be true, has no bearing on whether it is in fact true. I don't like what happened in Germany under the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I should believe the Nazis did not exist, so why should my revulsion at the thought of infidels burning in Hell lead me to believe that God and Hell do not exist? It might make me reluctant to worship such a God, but that is not the same as believing he does not exist. Religion means believing something in the absence of sufficient evidence. Stathis Papaioannou _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ My belief is that in matters of faith, you can choose to believe or not believe based on whether it suits your personal preferences. Your example of the Nazis would not apply because there is overwhelming evidence that the Nazis existed. Perhaps it can be argued that there is meaningful evidence that the God described in Sunday school class exists as well, however I don't think anyone would argue that the evidence for that God is nearly as strong as evidence of the Nazis. As you say, religion, by necessity, is based on faith and therefore little to no objective evidence. I guess your point was that if you already have the faith in something without evidence, the fact that you are then taught as part of the belief system that there are some aspects not very appealing should not have any bearing on whether you still have your faith? I would disagree with that in that you can have faith in something because the concept is attractive to you, but then lose your faith when the concept is shown to be less attractive. (this was not really my situation as a child- I was never really presented the opportunity to examine the faith until presented with the teachings described in the original post). This is not entirely unrelated to the sciences. Science has pushed into many areas into realms that can only tangentially, at best, be proven with objective evidence. The MWI is a good example. I believe in it, because I think it provides the most explanatory power over competing ideas. However, it would be difficult to fault someone for demanding more in the way of direct evidence. In a sense, there is an element of faith in such theories. String theory is another example. I'm not saying these things are not science, just that they are theories beyond our reach to prove or disprove at the present time. Many scientists are quoted as endorsing string theory in part due to the elegance of the theory. This goes with what I was saying above about accepting something on faith as long as it appears to be the most attractive idea, even if it is not supported by much objective evidence. I doubt the beliefs of fundementalist Christianity will ever be absolutely proven or disproven, and as a faith belief I reserve the right to discard it at my choosing! Danny
[Fwd: Re: subjective reality]
Fair enough. But if we accept those parameters does it make any sense to even talk about reality.? Maybe in a philosophical sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense as by (your) definition objective reality, the only reality you say, is forever separated from what it is possible for us to experience, or to know. Therefore, in contemplating objective reality, we might as well be contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In a way you are certainly right, but in another way I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about objective reality either. For instance, under the theory of relativity different observers can observe the same events happening in alternative sequences, and happening at different times. Yet neither observer is wrong. So, for example in that event you can not speak of an objective sequence of events or time. And of course we are all aware of the role the observer plays in the development of quantum events. It seems to me that the observer is so intimately entagled with the reality of what he is observing that it makes just as little sense to talk about objective reality as it does subjective. However, this is not to say I do not believe in something like an objective reality; a way in which our world works that can be understood and studied and applies to all observers. But by the same token I believe in the concept of a subjective reality as complementary to that and as something with meaning. Danny Mayes John M wrote: Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the subject phrase. Does it make sense? Reality is supposed to be something independent from our personal manipulations (=1st person interpretation) and so it has got to be objective, untouched by our experience and emotions. Eo ipso it is not subjective. Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its own distortions it is subjective, not objective anymore. So it looks like subjective reality is an oxymoron. I understand if you (all) use the phrase as the 'imagined' and 'acceptable' version of something we CAN handle in our feeble minds. I would not call THAT a 'reality'. It seems to be a 'virtuality' as generated (even if only in modifications if you insist) WITHIN our mind, subject to our personal mental structure and content. I am not ashamed to say: I dunno, but it seems to me... in wich case I separated 'it' from any 'reality'. John M (the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion)
Re: MODERATOR'S NOTE: Theology Discussion
I'm sure Alan is just doing his best to keep everyone on point with the scientific concepts raised in FOR, but it is a little strange. For instance, the dramatic culmination of the FOR is the OP theory, which of course is a speculation, based in science, for a possible explanation of of the multiverse based on intelligent design. Now regardless of anyones thoughts on that theory the manner in which it is openly discussed in the book, and is in fact endorsed by DD as the best current concept of how an integration of the fundamental branches of reality may explain reality, would certainly seem to open the door to certain theologically orientated discussions, as long as you avoid dogmatic "Jesus is the way to truth" or whatever type discussion. I always had trouble getting my posts put on the FOR. Even my posts several months ago about time being the higher dimensial space the multiverse exists in were initially kept off the FOR board. When I challenged Alan about it, he relented and conceded there was no problem with the posts. Don't want to judge, but perhaps there is a little heavy-handedness with the post censorship there. Everything list is much better for discussion. Unfortunately it takes me a long time to decipher some of these posts, so I have to pick and choose what to read. I need to give up the practice of law to read all of the great posts made to the everything list! Danny Mayes Russell Standish wrote: I commiserate with you. I finally left FOR because of the moderation policy - that, and the endless waffle that would have been prevented had more technical language been possible in the first place. Anything of substance seems to get ported to the everything list eventually anyway! Cheers On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:48:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Alan, ... Sometimes the "moderation posts" are very interesting by themselves. It is a little sad that this one is authoritative and does not admit replies (in the FOR-list). (Given that my point was really that "theology" could be amenable to scientific discourse, once we make some assumptions). ... Alan, how could I communicate? If I explain in plain english I will look mystical and moderated out. If I explain the "mystical" out, then I will look technical, and moderate out again.
Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle
Russell, You are right, Tipler basically makes that argument. I just don't know if he or anyone couched it in terms of the anthropic principle in explaining what we observe and how we are here to observe it. I agree that Tipler gets a little too speculative in his book, but I actually believe (as Deutsch suggests in FOR) that Tipler may well be on the right track. The whole question boils down to (for me): is our experience emulable? If it is, you almost have to reject the MWI concept to preserve any hope of our conception of fundamental reality (meaning reality not brought about by an intermediate, intelligent information processing cause) Danny Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Russell and Friends, Having given a talk on this book with my friend David Woolsey, I would agree with you and add that it seems that Tipler has, as many others in the scientific community and they grow long in the tooth, realized the reality of their own mortality and have tried to use their knowledge to build theories to give themselves some hope of an afterlife. Stephen - Original Message - From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: danny mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:20 PM Subject: Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle Sounds to me what Tipler was arguing in Physics of Immortality. Whilst the Omega Point Theory developed in that book is interesting and fun, most of the rest of the book is rubbish. Cheers On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:35:03PM -0400, danny mayes wrote: to the effect that not only must the universe allow for intelligent observers, specifically us, but that the universe must allow for intelligent observers to be able to recreate or emulate their existence? Maybe a stronger version would be to recreate or emulate infinitely. I am aware of the final AP, which suggests life, or information processing, will exist forever. However, thats not quite as strong or final as what I'm suggesting.
Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
I'll answer your question (at the risk of incurring your wrath): those people are real in the sense that his brain is devoting processing power to creating the mental image of the individual, and everything related to this individual's personality. So even though the person in his head isn't nearly as substantive or complex as a person in the "real" world, information processing has been devoted to creating this "person", who has a real appearance and personality and behavior to at least one observer. Therefore the person is real to at least one first person perspective, but is not currently real to any third person perspective. It is not impossible to conceive of future devices that could display thoughts on a screen, or even materialize the thought (for you Trekkies), making the person real even to the third person perspective. Danny aet.radal ssg wrote: You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming. You're the one that called the ideas discussed here often as "half-formed". The problem Iused to have (I'm too busy to even give darn anymore) is when ideas are put out that don't seem to any thought behind them, prior to being offered. Like mystill unanswered question to Saibal about how people whoaren't "really" there but exist in Nash's headcan still be considered real in "our universe". That's what I'mtalking about. That's a fully formed idea with absolutely no basis in the objective world that was just put out there like it meant something, when in fact it's ridiculous.I asked simply what he meant by it, to see howpossibly he could defend such a statement, and got nothing. Par for the course, I'm sure. - Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:29:13 -0400 aet.radal ssg wrote: Clearly, the method and definition of brainstorming that you're accustomed to is different than mine. The "half-formed idea" is what initiates the brainstorm for me, which is fully formed when the storm is over, ie. the ground is parched and in need of rain, the storm comes and when it's over, the ground is wet and crops can grow. Sorry, I just couldn't think of a snappy computer metaphor, being as I'm from the 1930's, as I have been told But does this mean you think no one should discuss ideas that are not fully developed? To use my earlier example, do you think Einstein should have kept his mouth shut about ideas like the equivalence principle and curved space until he had the full equations of general relativity worked out, and that if he did try to discuss such half-finished ideas with anyone it would be because he just liked to hear himself talk? Jesse -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle
to the effect that not only must the universe allow for intelligent observers, specifically us, but that the universe must allow for intelligent observers to be able to recreate or emulate their existence? Maybe a stronger version would be to recreate or emulate infinitely. I am aware of the final AP, which suggests life, or information processing, will exist forever. However, thats not quite as strong or final as what I'm suggesting.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]
Russell, When I stated in the original reply that pulling information out of other worlds in the MWI context was prohibited by physics, I was referring to information about those universes. As I stated, obviously you can create a superposition to utilize processing power in other universes, but you can't take from this information about the universes/worlds you are utilizing. Therefore, the original concept of people "seeing" into other universes seems to be prohibited by the laws of physics. As I understand it, the mathematics of Hilbert space prohibits inter-world communications because the attempt to remove information from Hilbert space causes decoherence, destroying reversibility. "Any Hilbert space accessible from more than one world line must be a timeless place, in which we can leave no permanent mark." - Colin Bruce Also, I'm interested in your TIME hypothesis. Could you refer me to a source for information, or summarize for me? Danny Mayes Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:13:33AM -0400, John M wrote: Russell wrote to Danny: The Grover algorithm is a form of accessing information from other worlds. Of course the worlds need to be prepared in just the right way, of course... I suppose these "other worlds" are potential life-form carrying bodies of this (our) universe, because as far as I know we have no way(s) to access any information from other universes (that MAY be) - unless we take our speculations for 'real'. Does the "prepared" mean some adjustment to understand the diverse situations in terms familiar to us here? that would mean a humanization (anthropomorphization) of the non-human. Would that be productive in the scientific sense? Communication between worlds takes place within the confines of quantum superposition. Setting up the superposed states is what I mean by "prepared".
Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness
Bruno, You've probably already addressed this recently, but given the number of posts and my work load I have not been able to read the much of the list recently. What does comp make of time? Is it merely some measure of the relationships among bitstrings in platonia? Danny Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-mai-05, à 19:39, Brent Meeker a écrit : In what sense does the program exist if not as physical tokens? Is it enough that you've thought of the concept? The same program, i.e. bit-string, does different things on different computers. So how can the program instantiate reality independent of the compu By the magic of Church thesis, going from one computer to another is just like making a change of basis in some space. All result in Algorithmic information theory are independent of the choice of computer modulo some constant. The same for recursion theory (abstract computer or generalized computer theory) even without constant. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
[Fwd: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality]
aet.radal ssg wrote: Dear Jeanne: Message - From: "Jeanne Houston" To: "Stathis Papaioannou" , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:19:01 -0400 I didn't read the article but I am aware of the conceptual basis for this idea. To answer your question, it is possible that altered states, including those caused by mental illness, can allow the brain to pick-up information from elsewhere. However, the differentiation must be made between such elsewhere (or elsewhen) awarenesses and true hallucinations (the same goes for dreams. Some people postulate that some dreams could be awarenesses of other realities but then use lucid dreaming as an example. Right idea, wrong type of dream). Many of the hallucinations common to schizophrenics are based on outside stimuli triggering a preconvieved viewpoint which is then externalized as a hallucination. For example, such a patient may be on his way to the pharmacy to get a prescription filled and see abillboard for an auto body repair shop that features a close-up shot of a man cowering in fear that says "Watch Out! The Morons are Out There!" (a true advertisement). This billboard could stimulate a reaction in the patient based upon the apprehension that the doctor may not know what he's doing and prescribed the wrong medication. This reaction could manifest itself as a merely a thought, "Yeah. And I bet my shrink's a moron too!" or it could extend into the outside world if the patient looks back at the sign. Suddenly the sign could have its own response to this sudden thought that the patient's psychiatrist is a moron and could read something like "Yes! Your shrink's a moron and he's out to get you!" This is based on research done by Janssen Pharmaceutica http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/aug/schizophrenia/in the development of a simulator of the schizophrenic experience. The simulator was created with the input of actual patients to make it as realistic as possible, and I have used it before, as part of my research. In this case, the hallucinations of the schizophrenic are based on internalapprehensions and are not observations of some parallel reality.The tendency should be resisted to simply assume that just because someone is perceiving something that we aren't, that what they're are perceiving is somehow linked to someinterdimensional knowledgeor higher reality. If one wants to take that tact, then they must also engage in the very real hard work of substantiating exactly what the nature of these perceptions are and if they have any kind of objective basis. To do that takes a considerable amount of work. Otherwise the question goes unanswered and any consideration of what is or isn'tgoing on is simply unbridled speculation. Hope that helps. I'm not one to shy away from what others would perceive to be "unbridled speculation," however there are a few fundamental problems with the idea set forth by Jeanne. First, to the best that I understand, there is no evidence that we will ever be able to access the information of the parallel outcomes (worlds) in question. We can access the processing power of the other worlds, but the laws of physics seem to prevent our pulling information from another "world" into our world given the collapse that happens at the end of a computation (when we get our result from a quantum computer). So the idea seems to be prohibited by the laws of physics. And lets not even get into the proof problem. It's sort of like UFO's. Is it easier to believe that someone is crazy/seeing things/misinterpreting stimuli, or that they really are seeing other worlds/aliens? Spectacular claims require spectacular proof, and I don't see how this idea presents the prospect of any proof. Perhaps, if someone could in a statistically significant way predict future events or the location of hidden items, like remote viewing, could provide evidence, but there would still have to be some way to establish the link between that phenomena and other worlds. Danny
Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
I certainly have no ill intent, and am a little disappointed that an idea can not be addressed in a proper way, that being to simply explain the inherent problems. No need for hostility or acrimony. That said, John has a valid point (if he showed up on my legal lists that I am a member of and started giving legal advice perhaps the reaction would be the same, though I'd like to think we, even as attorneys believe it or not, might be a little kinder) and the "theories" (or rampant speculations John may suggest) and explanations thereof really should be left to those with adequate scientific background to handle them, and I therefore overstepped my bounds to an extent. That said, I do have two questions: 1. If it is true that "This is the distinctive core of the quantum concept of time: Other times are just special cases of other universes" (Deutsch, FOR, p.278), in the multiverse context, how can time be thought of as anything other than an area map of the multiverse?; 2. Does it really matter if the cube is really a rectangle? Regardless of the size of the "time area," (and it's proportionality to the "real" spatial dimensions) you would still have to divide it by the length of the world line, eliminating the volume. As I said before, this is speculative. But hopefully someone will be willing to point out the error of my ways, which I am sure would help more than just myself understand all of this a little better. Russell Standish wrote: John, you make out like Danny is trying to "Sokal" out this list. I don't think that is the case. His use of terminology is very muddled - he is a lawyer, remember, and lawyers use language in a different way to the rest of us. I was trying to see if he had the germ of an idea here, that properly expressed might provide an interesting insight. Alas I haven't been successful so far... Cheers On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 10:56:43AM -0400, John M wrote: Danny, (I think) I made the mistake to read your post below. Did you compose it from the habitual vocabulary of physics-related sciences to construct a gobbledygook that sounds VERY scientific? I enjoyed it as abstract paintings. Don't look for sense in those either. I figured you may have an identification for 'time' to image it as geometrical. I heard about one relationship netween (physical) space and (physical) time it is called (physical) motion. You wrote: [DM]: "It would be like drawing a square and asking why height is proportional to length. The relationship is necessary. " Same with your "cube(???)" and the time expressed as area. Or whatever. I post these remarks only to make listmembers (whom I honor no end) to think twice before spending their time and braingrease to work into it and - maybe - getting a Nobel prize (ha ha). If there is something logical, understandable, followable, in your position, I would be happy to learn about it. John Mikes - Original Message - From: "danny mayes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Russell Standish" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "everything list" everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:42 AM Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI Russell Standish wrote: What I was asking is why you think "time-area" should be proportional to length. I can't see any reasoning as to what it should be proportional to. Russell, Thanks for your interest in this. I did not make this any easier by bungling the initial concept a little in my first post. To directly answer your question, I am assuming space-time is a single entity, with time representing the spatial area of the multiverse. Therefore, the question you pose really wouldn't make sense. It would be like drawing a square and asking why height is proportional to length. The relationship is necessary. Going back to all of our multiverse stacks with the cube on it, all these stacks would equal the time-area. This is the "depth" of the cube in the multiverse, that would allow the cube to store 10^300 bits of information. The time area equals the cube in it's totality in the multiverse. So why, in our universe, can we only store information equal to the surface area? Well we know we don't have access to the whole cube, because we are not in all of the universes that this cube exists in. So we have to divide the cube by something to represent the fact that we are only on one stack. The proper divisor would be the length of the cube, because we are existing on a time-line. The information that can be stored is limited to a single set of outcomes- a line along the plane of the time area (a stack of pictures). This leaves us with the Holographic principle. Please note this is an interesting concept (to me) I am proposing because the geometry of it makes sense when I pi
clarification of earlier posts (RE: Holigraphic principle and MWI)
The core concept (which is somewhat muddled by the way I described it) is that we live in a 4 axis universe, but we visualize it as a 3 axis + linear time (i.e. viewing time as motion, a linear series of events) because we appear to be on a time-line due to the nature of consciousness. Realizing time is a 4th axis, and not just linear, opens up the understanding that we live in a multiverse. Horizontal + Vertical axis = area, add depth = volume, add time axis = multiverse space, hyperspace, whatever (but it is a higher space than just volume) The multiverse exists in the time axis. If the time axis is symmetrical to the other axes, the higher space information storage capacity would fill the volume of a cube of space along our world line. 3 axes = 10^200, 4 axes = 10^300. So if we could see the area of space across the time axis (across the multiverse), we would see 10^300 information. But we do not have access to anything but our world line, so this axis is excluded= 10^200 (The Holigraphic principle). So why did I get all twisted around trying to explain the mental image I had all along that time is a fourth axis which creates a higher space than volume that is the space the multiverse exists in? It is very hard to imagine a spatial quantity above volume, and I kept wanting to refer to it as a time area or a volume of time which greatly complicates the issue, because obviously it sounds like I am referring to typical 2 axis area or 3 axis volume. Imagine you have no knowledge of the physics of our universe, but mathematical knowledge. You are told that you are about to enter a 4 axis universe, but that the nature of your experience would make it seem you had the freedom to move about in 3 axes, but were stuck on a fixed motion along a line in the fourth axis. What predictions would you make about your experience? The two that come to mind for me are: It will be very difficult for me to appreciate the true size of this universe; and some observations will make it appear there is a higher dimension, given my failure to appreciate the fourth axis is really more than linear. The holographic principle is just such an observation- it implies we live in a universe with a higher dimension. Viewing time as an axis instead of a line, that higher dimension may be the area created by the time axis (the multiverse). This is the distinctive core of the quantum concept of time: Other times are just special cases of other universes - David Deutsch, FOR, p. 278. My follow up: Other outcomes/worlds are other universes beyond our world-line on the time axis. Danny Mayes
Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
Russell Standish wrote: What I was asking is why you think time-area should be proportional to length. I can't see any reasoning as to what it should be proportional to. Russell, Thanks for your interest in this. I did not make this any easier by bungling the initial concept a little in my first post. To directly answer your question, I am assuming space-time is a single entity, with time representing the spatial area of the multiverse. Therefore, the question you pose really wouldn't make sense. It would be like drawing a square and asking why height is proportional to length. The relationship is necessary. Going back to all of our multiverse stacks with the cube on it, all these stacks would equal the time-area. This is the depth of the cube in the multiverse, that would allow the cube to store 10^300 bits of information. The time area equals the cube in it's totality in the multiverse. So why, in our universe, can we only store information equal to the surface area? Well we know we don't have access to the whole cube, because we are not in all of the universes that this cube exists in. So we have to divide the cube by something to represent the fact that we are only on one stack. The proper divisor would be the length of the cube, because we are existing on a time-line. The information that can be stored is limited to a single set of outcomes- a line along the plane of the time area (a stack of pictures). This leaves us with the Holographic principle. Please note this is an interesting concept (to me) I am proposing because the geometry of it makes sense when I picture it mentally. You or others much smarter than I will have to explain why this works or doesn't work mathematically in QM or TOR. Colin Bruce suggests in his book that the cube volume contains multiverse information (as a speculative ending to his book), and when I started thinking about it I realized if you take the multiverse block concept seriously, and consider time a spatial dimension through the multiverse, a cube of space would only provide a full content of information before it was seperated out into all of the individual outcomes as it moved through time (or how about multiverse space?). A cube of space really does hold it's volume in information. But we have to divide by time. Particularly, the length of the time plane because the rest of the time area has been lost to the other outcomes/universes/stacks (or whatever allows you to conceptualize it the best). This is speculative (obviously). I'd like to hear some feedback, as this explains a lot (to me anyway) if the concept is right. Danny Mayes
Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, danny mayes wrote: Well, as described in the FOR think of the multiverse as a block, made up of different stacks of pictures that comprise individual universes as they move through time. Now try to adjust that to what is really going on: space time is expanding out from the Big Bang. If you could remove yourself from the multiverse and watch it, time would be expanding at an increasing area, just as the spatial dimensions are. The reason information storage capacity would equal the surface area of a given object is that any object or area is actually existing in all these overlapping timelines, or virtually identically universes. Therefore, if you assume the "time-area" is expanding at a proportional rate to the spatial volume, you would need to divide a cube 10^300 Planck units on a side by 10^100 to take out the information that is moving into the This is very sloppy - if "time-area" were proportional to volume, then the divisor would be 10^300. Perhaps you meant proportional to length, but then I do not see why this should be. You are correct. This is very sloppy. First, I made a typo in referring to the cube as 10^300 on a side when I intended to say 10^300 in volume. Also, the time area would be proportional to the other spatial dimensions (a side) of the cube, not the volume. My apologies. Again, the "time area" should equal a side if it is considered equivalent to a spatial dimension. volume or area of time, since we lose this information as we are stuck on a solitary time line and losing the multiverse information to decoherence. This is simply another way of saying we lose the information to the other universes, I'm just explaining why it would be the amount it is through the mental imagery of time expanding to fill a space equivalent to the spatial dimensions. But decoherence increases information, not loses it. It increases the information we have in this universe, by removing the interference of all the information from all the alternative outcomes. We gain the information of one possible outcome. From the multiverse view, there is no gain or loss of information, but from our perspective we gain one bit of information and the rest ends up in the alternative outcomes. Taking a bird's eye view, and watching the cube moving through the multiverse, all the overlapping universes the cube comprises, the cube could store 10^300 bits of information- equal to it's volume. However, if you measure the information in any individual universe, you have to divide the cube over all the overlapping universes it comprises, or an "area" of time equal to the the area of one of it's sides (again assuming the expansion of time is proportional to the expansion of the spatial dimensions.) This leaves information storage capacity equal to the surface area of the object . I am basically taking the block view of the multiverse seriously, and dividing the information storage capacity by the area of all the stacks of pictures the cube exists on, because we can only measure the information on the one stack that is our universe. The area of the different stacks can be thought of as an area of time, and would equal one of the spatial areas that comprise the cube if time expansion is proportional to spatial expansion. This makes sense to me, but then again I am an attorney Danny Mayes The only thing that makes sense to me is that maximal decoherence occurs by arranging observers around the 4/3\pi solid angle of the volume in question. Thus the maximum decoherence rate is proportional to the surface area of the volume. Also, we know that linear spatial dimensions are increasing linearly in flat space-time, so combining the two implies that maximal decoherence will occur quadratically as a function of time. Does this give us the holographic principle? Hmm.. Also, what happens if space-time is not so flat - say spatial expansion starts to accelerate like its doing now? With regards to your last, time area expansion would accelerate with with spatial acceleration. This means the number of stacks/outcomes become more numerous. With spatial collapse the time-area would decrease (stacks/outcomes decrease). (??)
Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
Russell Standish wrote: the divisor would be 10^300. Perhaps you meant proportional to length, but then I do not see why this should be. Don't know if I directly answered this in my first reply. If time-area equal an equivalent spatial area, we use length as the divisor to represent the fact that we have access to the information in one universe/one time line. We, of course do not have access to the information in the time area, which is all the possible outcomes.
follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
Considered from a MWI perspective, space-time is expanding to fill a volume not only of spatial dimensions, but of time. We consider time to move in a line, because we APPEAR to be stuck stuck on a single time path. Of course, we really know through MWI we are on some number of overlapping, identical paths. However, the point is that space-time is expanding not only to fill the volumes of space, but to fill a volume of time. By volume, I mean all the possible paths the multiverse can evolve into. Considering just time, if you add up all the possible time-lines evolving out from the big bang, it can be imagined as an expanding sphere proceding out in conjunction with the spatial dimensions. This time-sphere encompasses the multiverse, whereas a single time line encompasses a single universe. Therefore, Bruce's idea that the information contained in a volume of space constitutes multiverse processes makes sense, because the expansion of the time dimension would be proportional to the expansion of the spatial dimensions. From the time dimension perspective, we are very much therefore like the flatlanders- stuck in a 3D + 1D limited to a single line world that is really a fully 4D world. That seems to explain the holographic principle from a MWI perspective. Danny Mayes
How much of this is really science?
>From "A Different Universe" by Robert Laughlin (winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1998): "Greek creation myths satirize many things in modern life, particularly cosmological theories. Exploding things, such as dynamite or the big bang, are unstable. Theories of explosions, including the first picoseconds of the big bang, thus cross Barriers of Relevance and are inherently unfalsifiable, notwithstanding widely cited supporting "evidence" such as isotopic abundances at the surfaces of stars and the cosmic microwave background anisotropy. One might as well claim to infer the properties of atoms from the storm damage of a hurricane. Beyond the big bang we have really unfalsifiable concepts of budding little baby universes with different properties that must have been created before the inflationary epoch, but which are now fundamentally undetectable due to being beyond the light horizon. Beyond even that we have the anthropic principle- the "explanation" that the universe we can see has the properties it does by virtue of our being in it. It is fun to imagine what Voltaire might have done with this material...String theory is immensely fun to think about because so many of its internal relationships are unexpectedly simple and beautiful. It has no practical utility, however, other than to sustain the myth of the ultimate theory." Laughlin goes on to argue that string theory is a "textbook case of a Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will always remain just barely out of reach." Essentially, he is arguing these pursuits into cosmology have taken us beyond our ability to reliably test theories, and therefore beyond the bounds of meaningful science. He does not argue we should stop pursuing science, but instead that we should focus on emerging laws instead of a reductionist attempt to create a TOE. The main thing is he wants scientists to be more cognizant of these areas where they cross Barriers of Relevance, and can no longer reliably produce verifiable data. Is Laughlin right that so many of these topics we discuss are beyond the reach of "real" science? Should certain questions be put on hold until science/technology has caught up with our ability to test questions? I don't know the answer, but it seems reasonable to ask the question as to whether science can take us only to a certain point, from which we must then apply logic, circumstantial evidence, etc. It occurred to me while reading Laughlin's book that in Cosmology reductionism can be roughly compared to a study of the past, while emergence can be roughly considered a study of the future, or at the least of the evolution of states into the more recent past. Danny Mayes PS- another book I'm reading, Schrodinger's Rabbits by Colin Bruce, quotes Penrose as telling Bruce "David [Deutsch] seem to disagree on every conceivable point." That two individuals so imminent in the field could disagree so thororoughly on matters seems to make Laughlin's point.
Does Colin Bruce have the answer to the size of the multiverse?
I bought his book Schrodinger's Rabbits yesterday, and have been skipping around through it. Some of you may recall that I have questioned if there is any theoretical way we could estimate the size of the multiverse if it is not a continuum. I had suggested the size may be related to the number of possible alternative outcomes down to the Planck scale (which seemed logical enough to me anyway). Bruce introduces what I considered a very interesting concept, which may be old news given the book came out last year, but I do not recall seeing it discussed. He suggests the holographic principle may provide the answer. If the amount of information a region of space can contain is proportional to surface area, might the volume contain subinformation of multiverse processes? To quote Bruce: Perhaps a cube 10^100 Planck units on a side can indeed store about 10^300 bits of subinformation or multiverse information, but this capacity has to be divided between 10^100 world processes, giving only 10^200 bits of stable real information capacity to each. Bruce admits this is a speculative idea, but provides explanations as to how it is an interpretation that explains several aspects of our universe. I will go into more detail about this if anyone cares to hear. I must admit I'm biased here toward liking the idea because this directly addresses several key questions I have had about the structure of the multiverse, including the relevance of the holographic principle to the MWI. Anyone care to weigh in on the prospects for Bruce's idea? Danny Mayes
Re: many worlds theory of immortality
Isn't the inverse also true? Wouldn't there always be an outcome where you were born a little earlier, or were transported back in time through some means so that there are universes where your consciousness exists at the very beginning? I don't really believe this, but the logic seems to apply just the same. You can also play the same game with other qualities of consciousness (Is there always a universe where you are a little more intelligent, or knowledgeable, so that there are some universes that you know everything that can be known?) My personal belief is that QTI is not the end result of our consciousness. It's just too strange (and this coming from someone who accepts some pretty strange beliefs in the name of QM). Danny Mayes Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think you can apply the same reasoning to show you will be not only the only sentient being, but ultimately, the only *thing* in the universe (is this the same as saying you will ultimately become the universe?). If QTI is true, your consciousness will survive until the end of time in some branch of the MW with Pr=1. The Pr that any subset of the current universe (excluding you) will survive in the same branch as you is 1, so as eternity approaches, the Pr that anything other than you survives approaches zero. This is true even of the substructure sustaining you, since there is a nonzero Pr that you will find some other means of sustenance in the future. It is also true of your toys, that you might use to reconstruct happier times. The *only* thing guaranteed to survive indefinitely is you bare consciousness. --Stathis Papioannou _ Are you right for each other? Find out with our Love Calculator: http://fun.mobiledownloads.com.au/191191/index.wl?page=191191text -
Re: Belief Statements
I remember your previous posts on nothing, and how it decays. However, this concept requires an intelligence to be present with nothing to cause nothingness to decay, does it not? It is intelligence and consciousness which defines things and makes relative comparisons. Danny Mayes Hal Ruhl wrote: What I am really talking about is availability of choice. My All/Nothing model appears to preclude choice. In this it seems a member of a class that assume all information already exists. Awhile ago I posted on another model in which there is a Nothing. This Nothing suffers the same incompleteness issue as the one in the All/Nothing model. In this case to resolve this issue the Nothing spontaneously decays into a Something which then sets off on a trip to completion. This model seems to insist on the presence of choice. Hal -- Danny Mayes Law Office of W. Daniel Mayes 130 Waterloo St., SW P.O. Drawer 2650 Aiken, SC 29802 (803) 648-6642 (803) 648-4049 fax 877-528-5598 toll free [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Belief Statements
It may be a freshman philosophy question, but it can't be a physics question because you are dealing with issues occurring before our known physics were established. Hal Ruhl wrote: At 02:37 PM 1/18/2005, you wrote: I remember your previous posts on nothing, and how it decays. However, this concept requires an intelligence to be present with nothing to cause nothingness to decay, does it not? It is intelligence and consciousness which defines things and makes relative comparisons. Danny Mayes Actually no. The meaningful question that the Nothing must resolve is its own stability - persistence. This is the case in both models. It is a freshman physics question. The Nothing must resolve it but can not. This causes the decay into a Something if you will in both models. In the model free of an All once this happens it continues to complete itself by some path. This is a creation of information scenario. Choice is the way to do this. Hal -- Danny Mayes Law Office of W. Daniel Mayes 130 Waterloo St., SW P.O. Drawer 2650 Aiken, SC 29802 (803) 648-6642 (803) 648-4049 fax 877-528-5598 toll free [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Belief Statements
Could you explain this last line? Bruno Marchal wrote: At 10:24 13/01/05 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: As for the failure of induction if all possible worlds exist, I prefer to simply bypass the problem. Mmm... I think you make the same mistake as David Lewis (In the plurality of worlds, but in counterfactuals it partially fix the mistake ...). You bypass the most interesting problem which actually makes refutable classes of mathematical theologies. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
[Fwd: Re: Observation selection effects]
Original Message Subject: Re: Observation selection effects Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:29:54 -0400 From: Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] These problems remind me of the infamous Monty Hall problem that got Marilyn vos Savant in some controversy. Someone wrote and asked the following question: You are on "lets make a deal", and are chosen to select a door among 3 doors, one of which has a car behind it. You randomly select door 1. Monty, knowing where the car is, opens door 2 revealing an empty room, and asks if you want to stay with door one. The question was: Is there any benefit in switching from door 1 to door 3. Common sense would suggest Monty simply eliminated one choice, and you have a 50-50 chance either way. Marylin argued that by switching, the contestant actually increases his odds from 1/3 to 2/3. The difference coming about through the added information of the car not behind door 2. This example is discussed in the book "Information: The New Language of Science" by Hans Christian von Baeyer, which I am trying to read, but only getting through bits and pieces as usual due to my work schedule. According to the book, vos Savant still gets mail arguing her position on this matter. It seems to me it would be very easy to resolve with a friend, letting one person play Monty and then keeping a tally of your success in switching vs. not switching (though I haven't tried this- my wife didn't find it intriguing enough, unfortunately). I think these games provide good examples of how our common sense often works against a deep understanding of what is really going on around here. I also think they point to a very fundamental level of importance of the role of information in understanding the way our world (or multiverse) works Jesse Mazer wrote: Norman Samish: The "Flip-Flop" game described by Stathis Papaioannou strikes me as a version of the old Two-Envelope Paradox. Assume an eccentric millionaire offers you your choice of either of two sealed envelopes, A or B, both containing money. One envelope contains twice as much as the other. After you choose an envelope you will have the option of trading it for the other envelope. Suppose you pick envelope A. You open it and see that it contains $100. Now you have to decide if you will keep the $100, or will you trade it for whatever is in envelope B? You might reason as follows: since one envelope has twice what the other one has, envelope B either has 200 dollars or 50 dollars, with equal probability. If you switch, you stand to either win $100 or to lose $50. Since you stand to win more than you stand to lose, you should switch. But just before you tell the eccentric millionaire that you would like to switch, another thought might occur to you. If you had picked envelope B, you would have come to exactly the same conclusion. So if the above argument is valid, you should switch no matter which envelope you choose. Therefore the argument for always switching is NOT valid - but I am unable, at the moment, to tell you why! Basically, I think the resolution of this paradox is that it's impossible to pick a number randomly from 0 to infinity in such a way that every number is equally likely to come up. Such an infinite flat probability distribution would lead to paradoxical conclusions--for example, if you picked two positive integers randomly from a flat probability distribution, and then looked at the first integer, then there would be a 100% chance the second integer would be larger, since there are only a finite number of integers smaller than or equal to the first one and an infinite number that are larger. For any logically possible probability distribution the millionaire uses, it will be true that depending on what amount of money you find in the first envelope, there won't always be an equal chance of finding double the amount or half the amount in the other envelope. For example, if the millionaire simply picks a random amount from 0 to one million to put in the first envelope, and then flips a coin to decide whether to put half or double that in the other envelope, then if the first envelope contains more than one million there is a 100% chance the other envelope contains less than that. For a more detailed discussion of the two-envelope paradox, see this page: http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/envelope.html I don't think the solution to this paradox has any relation to the solution to the flip-flop game, though. In the case of the flip-flop game, it may help to assume that the players are all robots, and that each player can assume that whatever decision it m
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
Hal, I understand what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense. However, if you were to accept there are discrete units of time, space, and matter then the answer to the question "what number will you pick?" simply becomes the total number of possible interactions of these discrete units. Also, you can have an infinite number of worlds, and still have large numbers of worlds that aren't computable (of course, I know I'm not really saying anything there that everyone doesn't already know). My thought is that somehow some of these crazy worlds that we think are computable may not in reality be computable, because we are not factoring in the relationship with consciousness in creating the reality. That was sort of the point with the Osama as prez example. What about worlds in which pigs evolved to fly? If this violates fundamental concepts of biochemistry, could such worlds exist? No, the permutations of the solutions to those worlds don't lead to such outcomes. (This is not to say a flying pig could not suddenly appear, but I am referring specifically to an evolutionary process). I think the concept of a MWI that leads to an infinite computational device which can then recreate the whole process ad infinitum is very elegant and self-explanatory. Once the computer reaches infinite processing power, it is removed by definition from the confines of time (which simply records the rate of progress of the processing). Therefore, you are left with a timeless instrument that creates everything in an endlessly repeating cycle. But must the infinite processing machine choose between infinite universes or infinite repetitions? Must it choose among classes of infinite universes it creates? Or does it's infinite capacity allow it to create everything forever (within the range of computability)? I do not understand the math behind infinite sets well enough to answer these questions... Hal Finney wrote: Danny Mayes writes: First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of universes? However, if you start with the idea that the reality we experience is being created by a mechanical/computational process, isn't it more likely that the number of universes is just extremely large?Why should we assume the "creator" (however you choose to define that) has access to infinite resources? Also, everything that makes up our universe appears to have finite characteristics (per QM), so it seems like every possibility within the parameters of the multiverse could be covered by an enormous, but not infinite range of possibility. In some ways, infinity is a more plausible choice than some large number. After all, what number will you pick? A billion? 1.693242 sextillion? 10 to the 10 to the 10... repeated precisely 142,857 times? Any such number would be completely arbitrary. A fundamental theory about the universe should not have such magical constants in it. The only plausible numbers are 0, 1, and infinity. Maybe I'll throw in 2 if I'm feeling generous. Since evidently it takes more than 2 bits of information to create the universe, I think the simplest proposal is that there are no limits. I think we are overlooking something here. It seems like there should be a quanta of probabilty, just as there is (apparently) with time, space, and matter. In other words, once the probability of something happening falls below a certain threshold, it is not realized. Could there be a Planck scale of probability? Does decoherence somehow keep these strange events from occurring on a macro scale? It's possible. The concept of a special Planck scale is not part of QM. It is an incomplete attempt to merge QM with general relativity. Many physicists are coming to view our current attempts along these lines as unpromising. See Lawrence Krauss' interview in the new Scientific American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006colID=1articleID=0009973A-D518-10FA-89FB83414B7F . We don't really know how it will work out, whether there are these kinds of thresholds for matter or space or energy. But if it does, then I suspect you are right and similar limits could exist for probability as well. Sufficiently improbable events might not occur in the MWI multiverse. (Of course there are other ways to get a multiverse.) Hal Finney -- Danny Mayes Law Office of W. Daniel Mayes 130 Waterloo St., SW P.O. Drawer 2650 Aiken, SC 29802 (803) 648-6642 (803) 648-4049 fax 877-528-5598 toll free [EMAIL PROTECTED]
regarding QM and infinite universes
I posted this today on the Fabric of Reality Yahoo Group, but would like to get responses to it over here as well. First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of universes? However, if you start with the idea that the reality we experience is being created by a mechanical/computational process, isn't it more likely that the number of universes is just extremely large?Why should we assume the creator (however you choose to define that) has access to infinite resources? Also, everything that makes up our universe appears to have finite characteristics (per QM), so it seems like every possibility within the parameters of the multiverse could be covered by an enormous, but not infinite range of possibility. My understanding of QM is that it describes possibilities (even if vanishingly small) of bizarre things occurring in our everyday world. For instance, I once read a book in which the author calculated the possibility(incredibly small obviously) that our planet would suddenly appear in orbit, fully intact, around another star. He argued that QM allows for this possibility. I think we are overlooking something here. It seems like there should be a quanta of probabilty, just as there is (apparently) with time, space, and matter. In other words, once the probability of something happening falls below a certain threshold, it is not realized. Could there be a Planck scale of probability? Does decoherence somehow keep these strange events from occurring on a macro scale? Also, it seems to me that the violation of other physical laws comes into play in preventing many scenarios from taking place. For instance, with quantum immortality, I understand the concept that if there are infinite copies of me, there will always be one more universe in which I survive another second. But the reality is that there would seem to be a rate of diminishing return here. The probability curve would have a point where it approaches zero, even as the number of alternatives approached infinity. Another way to resolve the immortality issue is to presume consciousness survives death, but I will not remark on that further. One thing that I think hurts the MWI as a theory is the misconception among many that everytime a choice is made, the entire universe splits in two, and there is a proliferation of all of these virtually identical copies of universes out there somewhere. In reality there is only one universe, and there is a proliferation of differences being created. The only thing that matters are the recorded differences, everything else remains unchanged. If you view our reality as a virtual reality it is much easier to understand this concept. For instance a program that predicts the weather doesn't have to create an entirely new simulation for each outcome it predicts- it can overlap the various possibilities in one simulation.
Does Omega point theory allow for an eternally self-creating universe?
Assuming MWI is correct, and that Tipler's Omega point theory is correct in that in at least some portion of the multiverse there will exist the physical capacity for a computer to exist with infinite computing power, even in the confines of a finite universe, does this then allow for an eternally self-recreating universe with no outside explanation necessary? Specifically, the question is whether the Omega point computer could simulate the birth of a new, fully intact multiverse and run it through to the creation of a new virtual omega point computer, that would then continue the process in an endless cycle (or chain)? Does one computer with infinite computing power (and only a millisecond to exist from an objective viewpoint) allow for this infinite layer of creation? Does it matter whether the multiverse itself is infinite or just very large?
Re: regarding QM and infinite universes
So far, no-one has been able to tell me what happens to the probability of bizarre quantum events occurring as t-infinity in a finite, eternally expanding universe, which incidentally seems more likely than the Tipler scenario. Stathis Papaioannou I think there are many things that never happen in even an infinite universe, for reasons that are hard to put into words, and certainly not expressable in terms of math. For instance, I do not believe there will ever exist, anywhere in the multiverse, a reality in which Osama Bin Laden is elected president of the United States in 2004, and is carried into the White House on the shoulders of a boisterous, enthusiatic public. QM does not overtake other physical laws, including difficult to define laws of psychology. A computer could simulate such an event without granting the actors in the simulation consciousness, but for it to actually happen in a universe in which the participants were conscious actors on the stage of reality, such an event would require countless millions of people to not only do something totally illogical, but vehemently against everything they would wish for or desire. I assume if the probability of bizarre quantum events descreases at all over time, then these events may never occur even given infinity? Why should the probability of these events change? Is it based on a theory that the laws of physics are not constant, or they are only local? Also, I assume that if you accept the MWI, regardless of whether our universe is expanding forever, you accept there are countless universes (or better described as countless permutations of our universe) that appear identical to us right now, that will actually contract into a big crunch, making the issue of whether any one particular universe is going to expand forever or collapse pointless? Danny Mayes
Joining
Hi everyone! I have been a fan of this list for some time, reading the archive. I am an attorney with no educational background in science, so I probably will mostly keep my mouth shut and continue to read. With that said, I do have a great deal of interest in these topics, and have read a number of books and papers on the subject matter. Given my background, my approach is often more logical and philosophical than science based. I look forward to further enlightening discussion! Danny Mayes
