Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi Norman, Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman Samish a écrit : (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicate my brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. But even if it did, this would not be me returning from the dead - it would be a simulation by a AI. What is you then ? How do you define it ? Like I said in an earlier mail, me seems to be an instantaneous and emerging concept... The Norman in the simulation would say he is him... Talking about indexical reference when talking about future/past/copied self has no meaning... Or please define what is you. Quentin Anciaux
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
- Original Message - From: "Quentin Anciaux" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AM Subject: Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth Hi Norman, Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman Samish a écrit : (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicatemy brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. Buteven if it did,this would not be "me" returning from the dead - it wouldbe a simulation by a AI.What is "you" then? How do you define it? Like I said in an earlier mail, "me" seems to be an instantaneous and emerging concept... The Norman in the simulation would say he is "him"... Talking about indexical reference when talking about future/past/copied self has no meaning... Or please define what is "you".Quentin Anciaux ~ Hi Quentin, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have to guess what you mean by"instantaneous and emerging concept" and "indexical reference." I'm unskilled in the nuances of scientific philosophy. Nevertheless, I am able to reason and draw conclusions. I agree that nothing is certain- we all deal in probabilities. I think that it is highly probable that I am aunique (in our universe) self-aware organism writing this note. That's what I define as "me." I think it is highly unlikely thatsome hypothetical AI could makea Norman simulation that is unaware it is a simulation. Such a simulation would, of course,think it was "me." But it would be mistaken. I think there is one"truth," which is thatit is a simulation and I am the real thing. My conjecture is thataperfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible.If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible.Humans havenot made the discovery that they are simulations,therefore the most probable situation is that we are not simulations. Norman
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: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi Danny, Thanks for your interesting comments. I've responded below. Norman 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. (NS) OK, I can't speak for you, only for me. The concept of an afterlife - heaven, hell, or whatever - is ridiculous TO ME. I can't prove anafterlife doesn't exist - maybe it does with some minute probability - but if so it's existence is immaterial to me since I can't communicate with it. - 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 cognizant. 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? (NS) No - I don't think it's "crazy speculation." That term, in my view, would apply to after-death awareness. This viewpoint is logical because it is supported by my experience, which tells me that there is no convincing evidence that anybody's awareness has continued beyond their death. 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? (NS) I can't speak for a multiverse. I agree that a multiverse consisting of all possible universes may exist, and may even be required if space-time is infinite. All possible universes must include an infinity of universes identical to this one. But, to me, this is meaningless speculation since there is no way to communicate between these hypothetical universes. My doppelganger in an identical universe can have no influence on my fate in my own universe. He is irrelevant.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." (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicate my brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. But even if it did, this would not be"me" returning from the dead - it would be a simulation by a AI.I do not want to toss out there there is fundamental truth, fundamental
Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is - 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. The thing I'm agnostic about (defining "agnostic" as"without knowledge") is whether aninfinitely powerfulGod isreponsible for the universe we see. And if this God exists, why? And where did IT come from? If you havean answerto "Why does anything exist?" I'd be glad to hear it. With respect to the personal gods that much of humanity prays to and hasfaith in,I think they're the result of human nature, fables, fiction, and the machinations of priests. The fact that so many have "faith" that these gods exist is dire testimony about a flaw inhumanity that embraces the irrational. Even though I don't think that personal gods exist, there arebenefits to having faith that they do. As Kevin Ryan said, there is comfort in submission. Norman ~ - Original Message - From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Norman Samish" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:59 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth 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 dayJohn M--- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if thereis no God, those that decide to have faith, and havethe ability to have faith, in a benign God havegained quite a bit. They have faith in anafterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph ofgood over evil, etc. Without this faith, life formany would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and theyget a zero. If there is a God, there is an afterlife 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 isfallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham andthere is no god, you have given up freedom ofthought, you have given up responsibility for yourown morals and ethics, you have denied yourself somepleasures of the mind as well as pleasures of theflesh.It's a bad bargain. Brent Meeker “The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed toeverything I hold in veneration- courage, clearthinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love ofthe truth.” --- H. L. Mencken Stathis Papaioannou wrote: . . . if you believe in the Christian Godand are wrong, the real God (who may be worshippedby an obscure group numbering a few dozen people, orby aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and maypunish you. An analogous situation arises whencreationists demand that the Biblical version ofevents be taught alongside evolutionary theory inschools: if we are to be fair, the creation myths ofevery religious sect should be taught. - StathisPapaioannou
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Norman Samish wrote: Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about heaven point out how ridiculous the concept is - 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. The thing I'm agnostic about (defining agnostic as without knowledge) is whether an infinitely powerful God is reponsible for the universe we see. Whether there is a deist God, one who sets the universe in motion but doesn't interfere in it, is undeciable - so one should be agnostic in the strict philosophical sense. But there are many propositions that are undeciable. Why pick out this particular one to discuss. Isn't it just because many people believe in a similar, but theistic God who answers prayers, judges the dead, and motivates suicide bombers? And if this God exists, why? And where did IT come from? Why not just suppose the universe exists and that it didn't have to come from anywhere (where else would there be?). If you have an answer to Why does anything exist? I'd be glad to hear it. OK, here are a few answers. What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing! --- Norm Levitt, after Quine The reason there's Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable. --- Frank Wilczek (Nobel laureate physics, 2004) Or to be less flippant - why would you imagine there could BE nothing? In fact you probably can't imagine it; I can't. Maybe it's just a form of words that has no meaning. Why is Nothing the default? And what's the definition of Nothing? To a physicist it's the solution to the equations in the TOE where all the field values are zero. Which is what Wilczek notes is unstable. I think that's probably the only coherent definition of Nothing. Brent Meeker Nothing: Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly esteemed by writers of a mystical or existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with anxiety, nausea, or panic. --- The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:15:59PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: If you have an answer to Why does anything exist? I'd be glad to hear it. OK, here are a few answers. What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing! --- Norm Levitt, after Quine The reason there's Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable. --- Frank Wilczek (Nobel laureate physics, 2004) Or to be less flippant - why would you imagine there could BE nothing? In fact you probably can't imagine it; I can't. Maybe it's just a form of words that has no meaning. Why is Nothing the default? And what's the definition of Nothing? To a physicist it's the solution to the equations in the TOE where all the field values are zero. Which is what Wilczek notes is unstable. I think that's probably the only coherent definition of Nothing. Brent Meeker Nothing: Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly esteemed by writers of a mystical or existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with anxiety, nausea, or panic. --- The Encyclopedia of Philosophy I don't agree with equating the vacuum with Nothing, although I know a few people do. The vacuum still has a wealth of information associated with it. In the ensemble of all descriptions (sometimes known as Schmidhuber ensemble), all describable things correspond to subsets of cardinality c=2^\aleph_0. For example every finite bitstring is represented by the subset of descriptions having that bitstring as a prefix. The only describable thing having vaguely the properties of Nothing is the empty finite string, which is, in other words, the set of all possible descriptions. But this is just the Everything. The Everything and the Nothing are equivalent, just as a finite bitstring is equivalent with the subset of bitstrings sharing the finite string as a prefix. I note that Hal Ruhl was going around saying the Nothing was unstable before Wilczek, but using a rather different argument. Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 pgpuvw8KMUNbz.pgp Description: PGP signature
