Re: Many Worlds morality

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Sep 2019, at 17:17, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:08:35 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 25 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated 
>> selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>> 
>> Sean Carroll
>> @seanmcarroll
>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168 
>> 
>> 
>> Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely 
>> quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely 
>> outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's 
>> brain at just the right time, etc.
>> 
>> He asks:
>> 
>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>> 
>> 
>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>  
>> 
>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime 
>> by Sean Carroll)
>> 
>> 
>> But he gives away the game here:
>> 
>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just 
>> as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."
>> 
>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>> 
>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
>> because there is no new material needed.
>> 
>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>> 
>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no 
>> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know that 
>> a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to deciding 
>> which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use aesthetic 
>> considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What I know is that materials science  taught in universities, applied in 
>> technology companies.
>> 
>> But nonmaterials "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
>> applications.
> 
> 
> You are right. And for a millenium; theology needed a cursus in mathematics 
> of four years. The fundamental courses to masteries were Arithmetic, 
> Geometry, Music, Astronomy.  Later came Diophantine Algebra, and even the 
> apparition of algorithm and rules.
> 
> You forget Mathematics. It is also taught at universities and applied in 
> technology companies.
> 
> The discovery of the computer was a discovery made by mathematicians trying 
> to solve problems in the foundation of Mathematics.
> 
> No. Computers were developed at Blechley Park, UK, during WW2, when the 
> British were trying to decode German encryption, aka Enigma. AG 

Yes, by Turing, who was among those logicians who discovered it, when working 
on the foundations of Mathematics, at the same time than Church (1936). Post 
got them with its normal systems and production rules, much before. Moses 
Schoenfinkel discovered a universal system, but without realising it, the SK 
combinators in Moscow in 1924, provided equivalent to Church lambda calculus, 
itself proved equivalent with the Turing machinery. Turing, and then the work 
of Kleene, made precise the difference between a universal machine and a 
universal machinery (we get them both at once, but there is an obvious 
difference).

Gödel also got it, without realising it, and he disbelieved in Church and 
Turing thesis, or Post law, that they got a mathematical definition of the 
notion of computable and universal machine, but admit it later. There are good 
reason to doubt, especially for Gödel who was just proving that there is no 
universal notion of provability, like Tarski was proving that there is no 
universal notion of definability. 

Yes, in the case of Turing, he will both discover the mathematical 
(arithmetical) universal numbers, and build the first step towards physical 
implementation of a universal machine. But I think that the true physical 
universal machine will be made by Suze and von Neumann, although Babbage will 
conceive it 100 years before.

All those works have lead to recursion Theory, which study the degrees of 
complexity of the arithmetical set, in term of degree of non computability. The 
arithmetical truth is highly not computable, but some relations are more 
uncomputable than others!

It

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:08:35 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll
>>> @seanmcarroll
>>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>>
>>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
>>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>>
>>> He asks:
>>>
>>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he gives away the game here:
>>>
>>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
>>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
>>> events."
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>>
>>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
>>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
>>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
>>> because there is no new material needed.
>>>
>>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>>
>>
>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no 
>> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know 
>> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to 
>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use 
>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
>>
>>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
>
> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, applied 
> in technology companies.
>
> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
> applications.
>
>
>
> You are right. And for a millenium; theology needed a cursus in 
> mathematics of four years. The fundamental courses to masteries were 
> Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, Astronomy.  Later came Diophantine Algebra, 
> and even the apparition of algorithm and rules.
>
> You forget Mathematics. It is also taught at universities and applied in 
> technology companies.
>
> The discovery of the computer was a discovery made by mathematicians 
> trying to solve problems in the foundation of Mathematics.
>

No. Computers were developed at Blechley Park, UK, during WW2, when the 
British were trying to decode German encryption, aka Enigma. AG 

>
> The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe 
> of the doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science.
>
> Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting 
> that another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit 
> new interpretation.  It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory 
> and the means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to 
> recover the prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing 
> consciousness under the rug.
>

But you haven't given a plausible argument why a monkey typing long enough, 
will produce QM. It will just be more text and nothing connected to the 
Scientific Method of validation, which surely seems to need a physical 
world for said validation. AG 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c03b3dfe-2df8-4e9e-bbfe-baa18f6aef1c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Group Nazi, or Soup Nazi (Check American humor reference, series, Seinfeld). I 
like the ideas (maybe) of an afterlife where your consciousness zooms in to 
your Closest Continuer, but, its smells unlikely, and thus is useless, and 
probably not real. The Netflix series Travelers had the minds from centuries 
from the future download into people who they knew were about to die, and then 
own their bodies, in order to "Save the World," from known, terrible, disasters 
that occurred. For me, I like creepy guy Woody Allen's comment on mortality, 
which was: "I don't want to continue living through my writings and works, I 
want to continue living on in mu apartment!"

-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2019 6:06 am
Subject: Re: Many Worlds morality



Sorry, I didn't realize you were the Group Nazi.
@philipthrift

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:26:01 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
http://www.weidai.com/ everything.html  

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:24, Quentin Anciaux  a écrit :



Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift  a écrit :



On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a écrit :



On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:


On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:


Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated 
selves when they bach off into other worlds.
Sean Carroll@seanmcarrollhttps://twitter.com/ seanmcarroll/status/ 
1176617631408775168
Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely 
quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely 
outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's 
brain at just the right time, etc.
He asks:
"If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"

https://lithub.com/if-you- existed-in-multiple-universes- 
how-would-you-act-in-this-one/(From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and 
the Emergence of Spacetime by Sean Carroll)

But he gives away the game here:
"To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as 
if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."
Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is fundamentally 
an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as well. Those who 
think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no problem with the 
idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, because there is no 
new material needed.
(The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the promotion 
- Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no less 
“religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know that a true 
material world does or does not exist. When it comes to deciding which 
interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use aesthetic 
considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou



What I know is that materials science  taught in universities, applied in 
technology companies.
But nonmaterials "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
applications.


So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no application... 
You don't use ontology to make things.
Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's all, 
so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course they are, 
as much as you are about matter being primary.
Quentin 
@philipthrift-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ 
msgid/everything-list/ 36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6- 3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups. 
com.



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
Hauer)





"ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"
Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles that are 
""ontology/metaphysics".

You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything 
theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that 
you're on the wrong mailing list.

@philipthrift-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everyth...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:08:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll
>>> @seanmcarroll
>>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>>
>>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
>>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>>
>>> He asks:
>>>
>>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he gives away the game here:
>>>
>>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
>>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
>>> events."
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>>
>>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
>>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
>>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
>>> because there is no new material needed.
>>>
>>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>>
>>
>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no 
>> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know 
>> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to 
>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use 
>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
>>
>>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
>
> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, applied 
> in technology companies.
>
> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
> applications.
>
>
>
> You are right. And for a millenium; theology needed a cursus in 
> mathematics of four years. The fundamental courses to masteries were 
> Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, Astronomy.  Later came Diophantine Algebra, 
> and even the apparition of algorithm and rules.
>
> You forget Mathematics. It is also taught at universities and applied in 
> technology companies.
>
> The discovery of the computer was a discovery made by mathematicians 
> trying to solve problems in the foundation of Mathematics.
>
> The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe 
> of the doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science.
>
> Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting 
> that another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit 
> new interpretation.  It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory 
> and the means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to 
> recover the prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing 
> consciousness under the rug.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I was thinking of that. My Ph.D. (now 40+ years ago) is from this 
department:

  https://www.brown.edu/academics/applied-mathematics/

(One of the few US universities then with a separately-identified Applied 
Mathematics department.)

One of my freshman classes in 1971 was numerical methods with many hours in 
front of an APL terminal.

Math is the hidden language of nature, I thought when I went there. The 
separate Mathematics department then didn't have as cool of a building as 
Applied Mathematics, a sort of gothic mansion.

@philipthrift



 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6043a8ee-0111-47af-b1ca-8c3f29437d56%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Bruno Marchal]

The question is “do you have the right to torture yourself” for example. That 
sounds weird, but that is what some machines  and humans will defend, as a 
universal right. It makes sense in a world where you can duplicate yourself. 

It is a sort of property of science (and religion “well understood”), and why 
it frightens many people, it give more right. That is deeply ingrained already 
in the very notion of Turing universality, whose prize is an unavoidable threat 
on security. The universal machine can preserve universality only be “welcoming 
insecurity” (cf Alan Watts: the Wisdom of Insecurity).

Science/religion gives right and power, but that is also why the tyran want 
them for themselves, and appropriating the religion is the good  common trick. 
Unfortunately that leads to pseudo-science, pseudo-religion and the suffering 
which go with this.

Bruno





> On 25 Sep 2019, at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated 
> selves when they bach off into other worlds.
> 
> Sean Carroll
> @seanmcarroll
> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
> 
> Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely 
> quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely 
> outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's 
> brain at just the right time, etc.
> 
> He asks:
> 
> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
> 
> 
> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime 
> by Sean Carroll)
> 
> 
> But he gives away the game here:
> 
> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as 
> if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."
> 
> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
> 
> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is fundamentally 
> an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as well. Those who 
> think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no problem with the 
> idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, because there is 
> no new material needed.
> 
> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b548d5c0-d746-42c6-a960-60f419ae771e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/551B1040-DB1A-4392-A56B-A8924BA5A4CE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated 
> selves when they bach off into other worlds.
> 
> Sean Carroll
> @seanmcarroll
> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168 
> 
> 
> Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely 
> quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely 
> outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's 
> brain at just the right time, etc.
> 
> He asks:
> 
> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
> 
> 
> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>  
> 
> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime 
> by Sean Carroll)
> 
> 
> But he gives away the game here:
> 
> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as 
> if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."
> 
> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
> 
> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is fundamentally 
> an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as well. Those who 
> think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no problem with the 
> idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, because there is 
> no new material needed.
> 
> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
> 
> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no less 
> “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know that a 
> true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to deciding which 
> interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use aesthetic 
> considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> 
> 
> 
> What I know is that materials science  taught in universities, applied in 
> technology companies.
> 
> But nonmaterials "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
> applications.


You are right. And for a millenium; theology needed a cursus in mathematics of 
four years. The fundamental courses to masteries were Arithmetic, Geometry, 
Music, Astronomy.  Later came Diophantine Algebra, and even the apparition of 
algorithm and rules.

You forget Mathematics. It is also taught at universities and applied in 
technology companies.

The discovery of the computer was a discovery made by mathematicians trying to 
solve problems in the foundation of Mathematics.

The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe of the 
doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science.

Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting that 
another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit new 
interpretation.  It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory and the 
means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to recover the 
prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing consciousness under the 
rug.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F9C9FEC-AA32-4F5E-A035-F74CDDAE8DE2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:15:47 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 14:52, Philip Thrift  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:01:24 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>   
>
>  saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 
>



 I said ontologies *without applications* is BS.


>>> There are no applications to ontology...
>>>  
>>>


>> Ontologies (making them for applications) are everywhere in computer 
>> science:
>>
>>
>> Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology
>>
>>
>> https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereotopology#Applications
>>
>
> Well it's not "ontology" per se which deals with the nature of the real.. 
> and that (ontology/metaphysics) has no purpose other than an intetellectual 
> one...  Maybe pursuing an ontology can bring new ideas that can lead to new 
> discoveiesy which could have applications, other than that, ontology has no 
> applications (and if you want to redefine the term as in your links, why 
> not, but that doesn't change the purpose of this list which for you is 
> talking about BS, yet still you want to participate... and call others name 
> and what not, denying your own religious bias).
>
> Quentin
>
>>
>>
>>
Sounds like it's a good idea to shut down university philosophy 
departments, if that's what philosophers think.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eadea2a1-ee73-49ab-9a95-d679fd1a5207%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 14:52, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:01:24 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
>>> wrote:



  saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I said ontologies *without applications* is BS.
>>>
>>>
>> There are no applications to ontology...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
> Ontologies (making them for applications) are everywhere in computer
> science:
>
>
> Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology
>
>
> https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereotopology#Applications
>

Well it's not "ontology" per se which deals with the nature of the real..
and that (ontology/metaphysics) has no purpose other than an intetellectual
one...  Maybe pursuing an ontology can bring new ideas that can lead to new
discoveiesy which could have applications, other than that, ontology has no
applications (and if you want to redefine the term as in your links, why
not, but that doesn't change the purpose of this list which for you is
talking about BS, yet still you want to participate... and call others name
and what not, denying your own religious bias).

Quentin

>
>
>
>  @philipthrift
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75a31ea4-110b-4fcb-a578-bae7d52451d1%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArVSoLpGpXcQqPqnPOwpCuX6gsXcXj0vxwagKxH%3D-CasA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:28:02 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 4:53:04 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:33:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:16:57 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:


 Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
 duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

 Sean Carroll
 @seanmcarroll
 https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168

 *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
 unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
 classically 
 unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
 Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*

 He asks:

 "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"



 https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
 (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
 Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


 But he gives away the game here:

 "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
 just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
 events."

 Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

>>>
>>> *How do you distinguish stochastic probability from quantum probability? 
>>> AG *
>>>

 Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
 fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
 well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
 problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
 made, 
 because there is no new material needed.

 (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
 promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

 @philipthrift



>>
>> There is quantum probability, which is advertised to come from quantum 
>> chip random number generators
>>
>>
>> https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/
>>
>> (to be concrete about it), where the claim is that the series of 0s and 
>> 1s one gets from then is true randomness (coming from a quantum source). 
>>
>
> *This is an operational definition of creating a (quantum) random series 
> of 0s and 1s. But I think there's a theoretically distinction between 
> quantum randomness and the (classical) stochastic random process, and it 
> involves the concept of interference. AG *
>
>>
>> Now in Sean Carroll's MW presentation, the computer with one of those 
>> boards in it would duplicate and there would be a 0 branch and a 1 branch 
>> with each 0 or 1 generated.
>>
>> So at the end of seeing 01001110 on your screen, there would be 2^8 
>> computers (and yous) in that many worlds.
>>
>> "Stochastic" (Greek word origin) is just another (cooler, some think) for 
>> "random". In a probability theory track at university: random processes, 
>> stochastic processes, same damn things.
>>
>>
>> Assuming there is just one world, there is just one computer at the end 
>> of seeing 01001110 and no other computers in other worlds.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>  
>>
>
Stochastic processes and stochastic deferential equations (SDEs) can ne 
applied to phenomena whether they are truly random or nor.  SDEs are 
applied in finance, for example,

But Sean is talking about quantum randomness.

Of course quantum stochastic processes have a different probability 
definition:

https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Quantum_stochastic_processes

classical: probabilities of disjoint events add
quantum: amplitudes of disjoint events add, the amplitude of an event being 
a complex number whose square is the probability of the event. 

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9b925f0-e0a0-490a-9773-2b3fba8869a8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:01:24 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>  saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I said ontologies *without applications* is BS.
>>
>>
> There are no applications to ontology...
>  
>
>>
>>
Ontologies (making them for applications) are everywhere in computer 
science:


Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology
   
https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereotopology#Applications


 @philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75a31ea4-110b-4fcb-a578-bae7d52451d1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 4:53:04 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:33:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:16:57 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll
>>> @seanmcarroll
>>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>>
>>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
>>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>>
>>> He asks:
>>>
>>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he gives away the game here:
>>>
>>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
>>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
>>> events."
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>>
>>
>> *How do you distinguish stochastic probability from quantum probability? 
>> AG *
>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
>>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
>>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
>>> because there is no new material needed.
>>>
>>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> There is quantum probability, which is advertised to come from quantum 
> chip random number generators
>
>
> https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/
>
> (to be concrete about it), where the claim is that the series of 0s and 1s 
> one gets from then is true randomness (coming from a quantum source). 
>

*This is an operational definition of creating a (quantum) random series of 
0s and 1s. But I think there's a theoretically distinction between quantum 
randomness and the (classical) stochastic random process, and it involves 
the concept of interference. AG *

>
> Now in Sean Carroll's MW presentation, the computer with one of those 
> boards in it would duplicate and there would be a 0 branch and a 1 branch 
> with each 0 or 1 generated.
>
> So at the end of seeing 01001110 on your screen, there would be 2^8 
> computers (and yous) in that many worlds.
>
> "Stochastic" (Greek word origin) is just another (cooler, some think) for 
> "random". In a probability theory track at university: random processes, 
> stochastic processes, same damn things.
>
>
> Assuming there is just one world, there is just one computer at the end of 
> seeing 01001110 and no other computers in other worlds.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12588c5f-bb60-4ed7-b99e-2610c16aa045%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit
>>
>
>
>
> I said ontologies *without applications* is BS.
>
>
There are no applications to ontology...


> As I noted: You don't read.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06f328f7-1214-4d30-b7a5-babbce44f423%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAr%2B8E8rbQ2Hjwck%2B8ZfO-v93koShe9UTkH5B07Y7PeN_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>   
>
>  saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 
>



I said ontologies *without applications* is BS.

As I noted: You don't read. 

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06f328f7-1214-4d30-b7a5-babbce44f423%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:33:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:16:57 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>
>> Sean Carroll
>> @seanmcarroll
>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>
>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>
>> He asks:
>>
>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>
>>
>>
>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>
>>
>> But he gives away the game here:
>>
>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
>> events."
>>
>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>
>
> *How do you distinguish stochastic probability from quantum probability? 
> AG *
>
>>
>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
>> because there is no new material needed.
>>
>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>>

There is quantum probability, which is advertised to come from quantum chip 
random number generators

https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/

(to be concrete about it), where the claim is that the series of 0s and 1s 
one gets from then is true randomness (coming from a quantum source). 

Now in Sean Carroll's MW presentation, the computer with one of those 
boards in it would duplicate and there would be a 0 branch and a 1 branch 
with each 0 or 1 generated.

So at the end of seeing 01001110 on your screen, there would be 2^8 
computers (and yous) in that many worlds.

"Stochastic" (Greek word origin) is just another (cooler, some think) for 
"random". In a probability theory track at university: random processes, 
stochastic processes, same damn things.


Assuming there is just one world, there is just one computer at the end of 
seeing 01001110 and no other computers in other worlds.

@philipthrift

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/235b2767-d6bd-4f37-af8b-e8dd2841883b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

And more insults...

You're first calling others religious, saying ontology metaphysics is
bullshit on a list just about that, then more insults... well I'm sorry for
you.

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:06, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize you were the Group Nazi.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:26:01 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.weidai.com/everything.html
>>
>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:24, Quentin Anciaux  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of
 duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

 Sean Carroll
 @seanmcarroll
 https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168

 *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch,
 but unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where
 classically unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in 
 the
 right Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*

 He asks:

 "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This
 One?"



 https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
 (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of
 Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


 But he gives away the game here:

 "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes
 on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic 
 quantum
 events."

 Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

 Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is
 fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist 
 as
 well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - 
 have no
 problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
 made,
 because there is no new material needed.

 (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with
 the promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

>>>
>>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic
>>> is no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to
>>> know that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to
>>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use
>>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in 
>>> discussion.
>>>
 --
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities,
>> applied in technology companies.
>>
>> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has
>> no applications.
>>
>>
> So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no
> application... You don't use ontology to make things.
>
> Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not,
> that's all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of
> course they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.
>
> Quentin
>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>




 "ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"

 Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles
 that are ""ontology/metaphysics".

>>>
>>> You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything
>>> theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may 

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:16:57 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>
> Sean Carroll
> @seanmcarroll
> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>
> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>
> He asks:
>
> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>
>
>
> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>
>
> But he gives away the game here:
>
> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just 
> as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."
>
> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>

*How do you distinguish stochastic probability from quantum probability? 
AG *

>
> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
> because there is no new material needed.
>
> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5f7de745-e562-4693-a355-48d00aa5e7f4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

Sorry, I didn't realize you were the Group Nazi.

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:26:01 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> http://www.weidai.com/everything.html  
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:24, Quentin Anciaux  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift > > a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a 
 écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll
>>> @seanmcarroll
>>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>>
>>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
>>> classically 
>>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>>
>>> He asks:
>>>
>>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This 
>>> One?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he gives away the game here:
>>>
>>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes 
>>> on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic 
>>> quantum 
>>> events."
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>>
>>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist 
>>> as 
>>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have 
>>> no 
>>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
>>> made, 
>>> because there is no new material needed.
>>>
>>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>>
>>
>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is 
>> no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to 
>> know 
>> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to 
>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use 
>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in 
>> discussion.
>>
>>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
>
> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, 
> applied in technology companies.
>
> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has 
> no applications.
>
>
 So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no 
 application... You don't use ontology to make things.

 Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, 
 that's all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of 
 course they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.

 Quentin 

> @philipthrift
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>


 -- 
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy 
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"
>>>
>>> Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles 
>>> that are ""ontology/metaphysics".
>>>
>>
>> You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything 
>> theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that 
>> you're on the wrong mailing list.
>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>>> To

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Well now the insults... Okay.

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 11:49, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:24:18 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
>>> wrote:



 Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a
 écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of
>>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll
>>> @seanmcarroll
>>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>>
>>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but
>>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
>>> classically
>>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right
>>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>>
>>> He asks:
>>>
>>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This
>>> One?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of
>>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he gives away the game here:
>>>
>>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes
>>> on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum
>>> events."
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>>
>>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is
>>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist 
>>> as
>>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have 
>>> no
>>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
>>> made,
>>> because there is no new material needed.
>>>
>>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the
>>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>>
>>
>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is
>> no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to 
>> know
>> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to
>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use
>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in 
>> discussion.
>>
>>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
>
> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities,
> applied in technology companies.
>
> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has
> no applications.
>
>
 So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no
 application... You don't use ontology to make things.

 Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not,
 that's all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of
 course they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.

 Quentin

> @philipthrift
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"
>>>
>>> Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles
>>> that are ""ontology/metaphysics".
>>>
>>
>> You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything
>> theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that
>> you're on the wrong mailing list.
>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>
>
> I see you have nothing constructive of insightful to say about the article
> on morality I posted by *Sean Carroll *from Literary Hub, which was a
> well-written article. I made a comment on the article in my post ,and cited
> what he said. You didn't in your post.
>
> But I can see you are the type of person who *rants and never reads*, nor
> can post anything of

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:24:18 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>
>> Sean Carroll
>> @seanmcarroll
>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>
>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
>> classically 
>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>
>> He asks:
>>
>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>
>>
>>
>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>
>>
>> But he gives away the game here:
>>
>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
>> events."
>>
>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>
>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist 
>> as 
>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have 
>> no 
>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
>> made, 
>> because there is no new material needed.
>>
>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>
>
> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is 
> no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to 
> know 
> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to 
> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use 
> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in 
> discussion.
>
>> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>



 What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, 
 applied in technology companies.

 But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
 applications.


>>> So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no 
>>> application... You don't use ontology to make things.
>>>
>>> Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's 
>>> all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course 
>>> they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.
>>>
>>> Quentin 
>>>
 @philipthrift

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy 
>>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"
>>
>> Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles 
>> that are ""ontology/metaphysics".
>>
>
> You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything 
> theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that 
> you're on the wrong mailing list.
>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>


I see you have nothing constructive of insightful to say about the article 
on morality I posted by *Sean Carroll *from Literary Hub, which was a 
well-written article. I made a comment on the article in my post ,and cited 
what he said. You didn't in your post.

But I can see you are the type of person who *rants and never reads*, nor 
can post anything of their own of any interest.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fro

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

http://www.weidai.com/everything.html

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:24, Quentin Anciaux  a
écrit :

>
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of
>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>
>> Sean Carroll
>> @seanmcarroll
>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>
>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but
>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
>> classically
>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right
>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>
>> He asks:
>>
>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>
>>
>>
>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of
>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>
>>
>> But he gives away the game here:
>>
>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on
>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum
>> events."
>>
>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>
>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is
>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as
>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have 
>> no
>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
>> made,
>> because there is no new material needed.
>>
>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the
>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>
>
> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is
> no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know
> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to
> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use
> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in 
> discussion.
>
>> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>



 What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities,
 applied in technology companies.

 But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no
 applications.


>>> So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no
>>> application... You don't use ontology to make things.
>>>
>>> Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's
>>> all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course
>>> they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
 @philipthrift

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
 
 .

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"
>>
>> Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles
>> that are ""ontology/metaphysics".
>>
>
> You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything
> theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that
> you're on the wrong mailing list.
>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e477a0f-26b9-42cf-b114-94b3b7a22293%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like te

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 10:21, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of
> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>
> Sean Carroll
> @seanmcarroll
> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>
> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but
> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
> classically
> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right
> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>
> He asks:
>
> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>
>
>
> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of
> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>
>
> But he gives away the game here:
>
> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on
> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum
> events."
>
> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>
> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is
> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as
> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no
> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
> made,
> because there is no new material needed.
>
> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the
> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>

 Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is
 no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know
 that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to
 deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use
 aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.

> --
 Stathis Papaioannou

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities,
>>> applied in technology companies.
>>>
>>> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no
>>> applications.
>>>
>>>
>> So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no
>> application... You don't use ontology to make things.
>>
>> Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's
>> all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course
>> they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>
>
>
>
>
> "ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"
>
> Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles that
> are ""ontology/metaphysics".
>

You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything
theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that
you're on the wrong mailing list.

>
> @philipthrift
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e477a0f-26b9-42cf-b114-94b3b7a22293%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:00:52 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>

 Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
 duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

 Sean Carroll
 @seanmcarroll
 https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168

 *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
 unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where 
 classically 
 unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
 Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*

 He asks:

 "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"



 https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
 (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
 Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


 But he gives away the game here:

 "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
 just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
 events."

 Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

 Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
 fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
 well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
 problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being 
 made, 
 because there is no new material needed.

 (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
 promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

>>>
>>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no 
>>> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know 
>>> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to 
>>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use 
>>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
>>>
 -- 
>>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, applied 
>> in technology companies.
>>
>> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
>> applications.
>>
>>
> So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no 
> application... You don't use ontology to make things.
>
> Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's 
> all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course 
> they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.
>
> Quentin 
>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy 
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>




"ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"

Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles that 
are ""ontology/metaphysics".

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3e477a0f-26b9-42cf-b114-94b3b7a22293%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 09:55, Philip Thrift  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of
>>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll
>>> @seanmcarroll
>>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>>
>>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but
>>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically
>>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right
>>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>>
>>> He asks:
>>>
>>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of
>>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>>
>>>
>>> But he gives away the game here:
>>>
>>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on
>>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum
>>> events."
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>>
>>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is
>>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as
>>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no
>>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made,
>>> because there is no new material needed.
>>>
>>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the
>>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>>
>>
>> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no
>> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know
>> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to
>> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use
>> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
>>
>>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>
>
>
> What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, applied
> in technology companies.
>
> But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no
> applications.
>
>
So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no
application... You don't use ontology to make things.

Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's
all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course
they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.

Quentin

> @philipthrift
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo5yU_47ebumh7-fFm9qjTf_cTK%3DwQYxStnzD%3DSP%2BuNqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
>> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>>
>> Sean Carroll
>> @seanmcarroll
>> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>>
>> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
>> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
>> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
>> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>>
>> He asks:
>>
>> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>>
>>
>>
>> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
>> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
>> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>>
>>
>> But he gives away the game here:
>>
>> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on 
>> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum 
>> events."
>>
>> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>>
>> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
>> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
>> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
>> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
>> because there is no new material needed.
>>
>> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
>> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>>
>
> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no 
> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know 
> that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to 
> deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use 
> aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
>
>> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>



What I know is that *materials science*  taught in universities, applied in 
technology companies.

But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no 
applications.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Many Worlds morality

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of
> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.
>
> Sean Carroll
> @seanmcarroll
> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168
>
> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but
> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically
> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right
> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*
>
> He asks:
>
> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"
>
>
>
> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of
> Spacetime by Sean Carroll)
>
>
> But he gives away the game here:
>
> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just
> as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."
>
> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.
>
> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is
> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as
> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no
> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made,
> because there is no new material needed.
>
> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the
> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)
>

Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no
less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know
that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to
deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use
aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypUUPduwPefu96NQZFn6-HBgJ%3DvbVmV1EMaCv0wSH%2BBwMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Many Worlds morality

[Philip Thrift]

Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of 
duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll
https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168

*Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but 
unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically 
unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right 
Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.*

He asks:

"If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"


https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/
(From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of 
Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


But he gives away the game here:

"To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just 
as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."

Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is 
fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as 
well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no 
problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, 
because there is no new material needed.

(The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the 
promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b548d5c0-d746-42c6-a960-60f419ae771e%40googlegroups.com.