Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
On 2/24/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason: Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and uncomputable to those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the universe evolves deterministically. It is only the observers within the quantum mechanical universe that perceive the randomness and unpredictability, but this unpredictability doesn't exist at the higher level where the universe is being simulated (assuming many-worlds). MP: I don't think I can accept this. Maybe I sound arrogant in saying this, but I think the idea of simulation is used a bit too loosely. I know there are those lurking on the Mind Brain list and JCS-online who would say I am 'the pot calling the kettle black', because I am always asserting what I call UMSITW [pronounced um-see-two for English speakers] - updating the model of self in the world - is the basis of consciousness. But they misunderstand me, because I do not say there is anyone else doing simulation, merely that we experience being here because the universe has evolved self sustaining regions within itself which maintain their structure by means of dynamically modelling themselves and their local region so as to avoid fatal dangers while obtaining everything they need from their environments. My point here is simply that the universe is its own best simulation and that any ideas of something greater, such as a Matrix type operation, are science fiction only. Why? Because for a feasible universe like the one we seem to inhabit to be deterministic does not require that it is predictable nor that it can be repeatable. Nobody knows to what extent quantum level events are intrinsically random as opposed to being _pushed from 'behind' or 'below'_ so to speak. Whether the world can be simulated and whether the world is being simulated are two different questions. Can you point to any aspect of the world which can't be simulated no matter how powerful the computer? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Mark Peaty wrote: This is yet another delayed response; the story of my life really ... Jason: By physically reversible I don't mean we as humans can undo anything that happens, rather physical interactions are time-invertible. If you were shown a recording of any physical interaction on a small scale, an elastic collision of particles, the decay of a nucleus, burning of hydrogen, it would be impossible for you to tell if that recording were being played in reverse or not, since it is always possible for that interaction to occur as it does in either direction of time. MP: This is only true for 'individual' reactions on the micro scale, but even then the 'truth' about the reversibility can only really be maintained by hiding the truth about the context. For example, it is logically possible for certain atomic nuclei to collide at just the right velocities and fusion will occur. In reality however the probability of what are normally fission products coming together to make a uranium nucleus is so close to zero you are never going to see it. [I don't know much about the physics but my casual believe is that heavy elements are created through various long and complex 'ratchet' accretion pathways in which nuclear isotopes of H or He enter heavier nuclei.] Like wise the burning of hydrogen; it seems simple enough and yes it is 'reversible', but does the reverse occur? Not where you and I can see it. But according to modern physics, at maximum entropy the probability of any reaction should be identical to the probability of its time-inverted one (actually, there are a few weak nuclear reactions where you'd need to invert charge and parity as well--the laws of fundamental physics are CPT-symmetric, but not always T-symmetric). It's thought that the only reason some reactions are more likely to happen in the forward direction than the backward direction in the real world is because of the low-entropy initial boundary conditions of the universe; if we lived in a universe with low-entropy final boundary conditions on the big crunch and no constraints on the big bang, then the arrow of time would be reversed. And the reasons for the low-entropy big bang remain fairly mysterious, we may not understand it without a complete theory of quantum gravity or TOE (in the physics sense of unifying all four forces, not in the list's sense). Jesse _ Don’t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft® Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thank you, guys, for 2 parts in this post I cherrish most. (I was questioning the endless back-and-forth of these 'bickercussions', but from time to time there is a part that justifies the frustration of reading so much) * I leave the part from Stathis' text which I want to copy to another list (with credit to Stathis and this list - if it is not prohibited, pls advise) between dotted lines. Also: The remark of Brent opened up a little light in my head (aka activated some photons in the neurons?) about refreshing the 'pilot wave' of D. Bohm as coinciding with Robert Rosen's anticipatory principle. (Bohm's priority). * Btw I find 'metaphysics' was a false historical mock-name to reject everything outside the primitive ancient model they called (then) physics (the science). Today's physics is many times 'meta', especially when carrying a Q-name. I can relate to both of yours remarks. ( Theists etc. just wanted to ride that horse in the past. ) The wording that emerges in talks about metaphysics is a mixture of the ancient denigration and the up-to-date ideas. Is it still fruitful to argue about a past misnomer? John M PS. about 'cause' and 'positivists': if we accept the random occurrences in the existence, we just waste any effort to identify ANY order (including math). I don't think the 'positivist' is a right (denigrating?) word for the idea that everything is (deterministically) interconnected/ interinfluencing any occurrence to 'happen' - maybe not 'causing' just 'directing/facilitating' - entailing in some sense. JM - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:32 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I suppose it depends on what is covered by the term metaphysics. Theists sometimes profess absolute certainty in the face of absolute lack of evidence, and are proud of it. I wouldn't lump this in together with the interpretation of quantum mechanics (I'm sure you wouldn't either, but I thought I'd make the point). ... (On /24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:) On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Skip * Stathis Papaioannou I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. - The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Mark Peaty wrote: This is yet another delayed response; the story of my life really ... Jason: By physically reversible I don't mean we as humans can undo anything that happens, rather physical interactions are time-invertible. If you were shown a recording of any physical interaction on a small scale, an elastic collision of particles, the decay of a nucleus, burning of hydrogen, it would be impossible for you to tell if that recording were being played in reverse or not, since it is always possible for that interaction to occur as it does in either direction of time. MP: This is only true for 'individual' reactions on the micro scale, but even then the 'truth' about the reversibility can only really be maintained by hiding the truth about the context. For example, it is logically possible for certain atomic nuclei to collide at just the right velocities and fusion will occur. In reality however the probability of what are normally fission products coming together to make a uranium nucleus is so close to zero you are never going to see it. [I don't know much about the physics but my casual believe is that heavy elements are created through various long and complex 'ratchet' accretion pathways in which nuclear isotopes of H or He enter heavier nuclei.] Like wise the burning of hydrogen; it seems simple enough and yes it is 'reversible', but does the reverse occur? Not where you and I can see it. Jason: Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and uncomputable to those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the universe evolves deterministically. It is only the observers within the quantum mechanical universe that perceive the randomness and unpredictability, but this unpredictability doesn't exist at the higher level where the universe is being simulated (assuming many-worlds). This is mixing Everett's relative state interpretation with the idea that the world is a simulation. These are not the same and maybe not even compatible. The world evolves deterministically in Hilbert space and the many-worlds are projections relative to us. Whether this can be simulated, except in a quantum computer, is questionable because the Hilbert space is infinite dimensional. Is some fixed finite resolution sufficient for simulation? MP: I don't think I can accept this. Maybe I sound arrogant in saying this, but I think the idea of simulation is used a bit too loosely. I know there are those lurking on the Mind Brain list and JCS-online who would say I am 'the pot calling the kettle black', because I am always asserting what I call UMSITW [pronounced um-see-two for English speakers] - updating the model of self in the world - is the basis of consciousness. But they misunderstand me, because I do not say there is anyone else doing simulation, merely that we experience being here because the universe has evolved self sustaining regions within itself which maintain their structure by means of dynamically modelling themselves and their local region so as to avoid fatal dangers while obtaining everything they need from their environments. My point here is simply that the universe is its own best simulation and that any ideas of something greater, such as a Matrix type operation, are science fiction only. Why? Because for a feasible universe like the one we seem to inhabit to be deterministic does not require that it is predictable nor that it can be repeatable. Nobody knows to what extent quantum level events are intrinsically random as opposed to being _pushed from 'behind' or 'below'_ so to speak. That is one thing. Another thing is that no entity or set of entities could know if their 'simulation' attempt was doing what they wanted in every detail because to attempt to find this out would interfere irreversibly with the unfolding of the world. This assumes that the simulation must be quantum mechanical - but I think that would defeat the whole point of assuming a simulation. If the world can be simulated classically, then it can be monitored without interference. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get into it is by Mark's remark: I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe that is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking stick. --Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000 in the bank in 100s and counted them 37,38,39, - then stopped and said: well. so far it was a match, let me believe that the rest is also OK. We are much earlier into the completion of what we know about our existence. Then again you both wrote about simulations (even: emulations) horribile dictu: The key point is that a wilful entity or conspiracy seeks to emulate all or part of another wilful entity's world to the extent that the latter can't tell the difference when the change is made. Untold: restricted to details known Nobody can simulate or look for unknown details. Of course the latter can't tell whether 'simulated' if looking only at the portion that matches. (I am not clear about wilful entity.) The fallacy of the simulational business is more than that: you (get?) simulate(d?) HERE and NOW and continue HERE under these conditions, while THERE the simulacron lives under THOSE conditions and in no time flat becomes different from you original. That the world of THERE is also simulated? Just add: and lives exactly the life of THIS one? then the whole thing is a hoax, a mirror image, no alternate. * Jason: A reversible computation is one that has a 1 to 1 mapping between input and output. Going up in the $100 bills to #45, the map may change. Don't tell me please such Brunoistic examples like 1+1 = 2, go out into the 'life' of a universe (or of ourselves). How can you reverse the infinite variations of a life-computation? You have got to restrict it into a limited model and work on that. Like: reductionist physics (QM?) . It seems to me like a return to Carnot, disregarding Prigogine, who improved the case to some (moderate) extent from the classical reversible even isotherm thermodynmx, from which I used to form the joke (as junior in college) that it shows how processes would [theoretically] proceed, wouldn't they proceed as they do proceed. We can reverse a closed model content, all clearly known in it. Not life. Just count into the simulations and reversals the constantly (nonlinearly!) changing world not allowing any 'fixing' of circumstances/processes. No static daydreams. * Jason: Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and uncomputable to those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the universe evolves deterministically. - right on. I just wonder why all those many worlds are 'emulated' after this one feeble universe we pretend to observe. In my 'narrative' I allowed 'universes' of unrestricted variety of course 'nobody' can ever continue in a totally different 'universe' a life from here. With e.g. a different logic. * Are you saying that a perfectly efficient computer could not be built or that the physics of this universe are not computable? You mean: with unrestricted, filled memory banks working on the limitless variations nature CAN provide? A perfectly efficient computer could then compute this universe as well. Maybe not these binary embryos we are proudly using today. Indeed: you ask about the physics of this universe, is it the reductionist science we are fed with in college? That may be computed. Discounting the randomness and indeterminism shown for members of this quantum universe of ours. Sorry for the length and my unorthodoxy. John M On 2/24/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is yet another delayed response; the story of my life really ... Jason: By physically reversible I don't mean we as humans can undo anything that happens, rather physical interactions are time-invertible. If you were shown a recording of any physical interaction on a small scale, an elastic collision of particles, the decay of a nucleus, burning of hydrogen, it would be impossible for you to tell if that recording were being played in reverse or not, since it is always possible for that interaction to occur as it does in either direction of time. MP: This is only true for 'individual' reactions on the micro scale, but even then the 'truth' about the reversibility can only really be maintained by hiding the truth about the context. For example, it is logically possible for certain atomic nuclei to collide at just the right velocities and fusion will occur. In reality however the probability of what are normally fission products coming together to make a uranium nucleus is so close to zero you are never going to see it. [I don't know much about the physics but my casual believe is that heavy elements are created through various long and complex 'ratchet' accretion pathways in which nuclear isotopes of H or He enter heavier nuclei.] Like wise the burning of hydrogen; it seems simple enough and yes it is 'reversible', but does the
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
John Mikes wrote: This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get into it is by Mark's remark: I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe that is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking stick. --Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000 in the bank in 100s and counted them 37,38,39, - then stopped and said: well. so far it was a match, let me believe that the rest is also OK. We are much earlier into the completion of what we know about our existence. Then again you both wrote about simulations (even: emulations) horribile dictu: The key point is that a wilful entity or conspiracy seeks to emulate all or part of another wilful entity's world to the extent that the latter can't tell the difference when the change is made. Untold: restricted to details known Nobody can simulate or look for unknown details. Of course the latter can't tell whether 'simulated' if looking only at the portion that matches. (I am not clear about wilful entity.) The fallacy of the simulational business is more than that: you (get?) simulate(d?) HERE and NOW and continue HERE under these conditions, while THERE the simulacron lives under THOSE conditions and in no time flat becomes different from you original. That the world of THERE is also simulated? Just add: and lives exactly the life of THIS one? then the whole thing is a hoax, a mirror image, no alternate. * Jason: A reversible computation is one that has a 1 to 1 mapping between input and output. Going up in the $100 bills to #45, the map may change. Don't tell me please such Brunoistic examples like 1+1 = 2, go out into the 'life' of a universe (or of ourselves). How can you reverse the infinite variations of a life-computation? You have got to restrict it into a limited model and work on that. Like: reductionist physics (QM?) . It seems to me like a return to Carnot, disregarding Prigogine, who improved the case to some (moderate) extent from the classical reversible even isotherm thermodynmx, from which I used to form the joke (as junior in college) that it shows how processes would [theoretically] proceed, wouldn't they proceed as they do proceed. We can reverse a closed model content, all clearly known in it. Not life. Just count into the simulations and reversals the constantly (nonlinearly!) changing world not allowing any 'fixing' of circumstances/processes. No static daydreams. * Jason: Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and uncomputable to those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the universe evolves deterministically. - right on. I just wonder why all those many worlds are 'emulated' after this one feeble universe we pretend to observe. In my 'narrative' I allowed 'universes' of unrestricted variety of course 'nobody' can ever continue in a totally different 'universe' a life from here. With e.g. a different logic. * Are you saying that a perfectly efficient computer could not be built or that the physics of this universe are not computable? You mean: with unrestricted, filled memory banks working on the limitless variations nature CAN provide? A perfectly efficient computer could then compute this universe as well. Maybe not these binary embryos we are proudly using today. Indeed: you ask about the physics of this universe, is it the reductionist science we are fed with in college? That may be computed. Discounting the randomness and indeterminism shown for members of this quantum universe of ours. Sorry for the length and my unorthodoxy. John M You seem to have two themes: (1) The universe is more complex than current physics makes it out and may not be computable, and in comparison, (2) Our ability to comprehend things is quite limited. But these two together imply that is quite possible that we live in a simulation. If the simulation is being performed in a universe like ours, one with very complex physics, then the physics of that universe could provide a simulation that was beyond our ability to discern as a simulation - because of our limited comprehension. The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evi
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined, and then recorded after its coming into existence, as indicated in many verses like, Nor anything green or withered except it is all in a Manifest Book. This Quranic statement is confirmed by the universe, this macro-Qur'an of the Divine Power, through its creational and operational signs like order, harmony, balance, forming and shaping, adornment and distinguishing. All seeds, fruit stones, measured proportions and forms demonstrate that everything is pre-determined before its earthly existence. Each seed or fruit stone has a protective case formed in the factory of Kaf Nun[*], into which the Divine Destiny has in-built the life-story of a tree or plant. The Divine Power employs the particles according to the measure established by Divine Destiny so as to cause the particular stone to grow miraculously into the particular tree. This means that the future life-history of that tree is as though written in its seed. While there is variety between individuals and between species, the basic materials from which these plants and animals are formed are identical. The plants and animals that grow from the same constituent basic elements display, amid abundant diversity, such harmony and proportion that man cannot help but conclude that each of them has been individually given its particular form and measure. It is the Divine Power which gives to each its particular form according to the measure established for it by Divine Destiny. For example, consider how vast and innumerable a mass of inanimate particles shift, cohere, separate so that this seed grows into this tree or that drop of semen grows into that animal. Since there are the manifestations of Divine Destiny to this extent in visible material things, for certain, the forms with which things are clothed with the passing of time and the states they acquire through their motions are also dependent on the ordering of Divine Destiny. Indeed, a single seed displays Destiny in two ways, one by demonstrating the Manifest Book (Kitabun Mubin) which is but another title for Divine Will and God's creational and operational laws of the universe; the other is by displaying the Manifest Record (Imamun Mubin), another title for Divine Knowledge and Command. If we regard these two as different manifestations of Divine Destiny, the former can be understood and referred to as 'Destiny Actual' and the latter as 'Destiny For-mal or Theoretical'. The future full-grown form of the tree can be understood as its Destiny Actual, whilst Destiny Formal refers to all the stages together through which the tree has to pass in its life, and comprehends the entire history of its life. Such manifestations of the Divine Destiny, so easily observed in a life such as that of a tree, are illustrative of how everything has been pre-determined in a Record before its worldly existence. On the other hand, all the fruits and seeds which are signs of the Manifest Book (Kitabun Mubin) and the Manifest Record (Imamun Mubin), together with all human memories which indicate the Preserved Tablet (Lawhun Mahfuz), prove that, as everything has been pre-recorded, its life- history is also recorded. The life-history of every tree, for example, is recorded in each of its fruits, which is the outcome of its entire life. The life-history of man including events occurring in the external world is likewise recorded in his memory. Thus, the Divine Power registers a man's deeds with the Pen of Destiny by lodging it in his memory so that he will be able to remember them on the Day of Reckoning. Man should also be assured that in this world of transience and upheavals there are numerous 'mirrors' pertaining to eternity in which the All-Powerful and Wise One depicts and makes permanent the identities of mortals. There are also many tablets upon which the All- Knowing Preserver writes down the meanings of transient beings. In short: While plants, which are the simplest and lowest level of life, are completely de-pendent upon Divine Destiny, it is also evident that the life of man, which is the highest level, has also been minutely determined by that Destiny. Just as drops of rain are indicative of a cloud, and trickles of water disclose a spring, and receipts and vouchers suggest the existence of a ledger, so fruits, sperms, seeds, and forms are indicators of the Manifest Book and the Manifest Record. The expression Manifest Book symbolizes the Destiny Actual, which is a title for Divine Will and God's creational and operational laws of the universe and the physical order displayed by
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined, and then recorded after its coming into existence, as indicated in many verses like, Nor anything green or withered except it is all in a Manifest Book. I guess the Koran's author hadn't heard about quantum randomness. Anyway that's not an explanation, it's just an assertion - and why should anyone credit assertions written without supporting evidence by a man who didn't even know that the Earth orbits the Sun. This Quranic statement is confirmed by the universe, It's not only not confirmed, it would be impossible to confirm even if it were true. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what absolute meaning means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. I read into this an implication that God would solve the problem because he could be outside the system, indeed outside all possible systems. But this runs into two problems. The first is that positivists are in fact very modest and make no claim to explain everything; the very opposite, in fact. The second is that the concept of an entity outside all possible systems, and therefore requiring no cause, design, meaning or any of the other things allegedly necessary for the universe and its components constitutes a restatement of the ontological argument for the existence of God, an argument that is 900 years old and has been rejected as invalid even by most theists. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
On 2/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how important a place this pillar of faith has for the whole of creation. The Qur'an specifically explains that everything is predetermined... If God decided to lay off the pressure on you to fulfil your destiny, so that you could do whatever you wanted, but you didn't know that he had done this and believed firmly that you were still guided by divine destiny, how would your behaviour be different? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably in the context of) some kind of metaphysics, since it is in the context of the universe as a whole. There are some ways of sorting out metaphysics. In fact these criteria are mostly the same as how we sort out science (since, again, science is based on metaphysics). These are such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. However, the fact that science conventionally has been limited to the material (whatever that means!) implies that the criteria of naturality (a viscious circle actually!) and reproducibility (another vicious circle) that we have in science cannot be applied to the universe as a whole or to metaphysics. [Side note: But even more important is to recognize that metaphysics, as well as science, is filtered for us: we are part of the universe and we are limited. So this filters out almost everything. This limits more than anything the amount of sense we can make out of Everything.] However the criterion that you are trying to enforce, that of all things having a cause even in the context of Everything and Everyone, is a positivist criteria, treating metaphysics as science. It assumes that Everything has to be part of this closed system of cause and effect. There are plenty of criteria to sort out Everything (as I've mentioned above) without getting into the positivist viscious circle. The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's going on. This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly disagree on rational grounds. One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical component. Science is just a systematisation of this process, with guesses taking the form of models and theories. So science is a just systematisation of a metaphysical judgment. I agree. However, it's all tentative, and the scientific method itself is tentative: tomorrow pigs might sprout wings and fly, even though this has never happened before. I would bet that pigs will still be land-bound tomorrow, because there is no reason to think otherwise, but I have to stop short of absolute certainty. A metaphysical position would be that flying pigs are an absurdity or an anathema and therefore pigs absolutely *cannot* fly. But it is arrogant as well as wrong to create absolute certainty, absolute meaning, or absolute anything else by fiat, just because that's what you fancy. If there are some things we can't know with certainty or can't know at all, that may be unfortunate, but it's the way the world is. Stathis Papaioannou Looking over my previous post, I cannot see why you are bringing up absolute certainty. Also I don't know what absolute meaning means, unless it means knowing meaning with absolute certainty in which case I don't hold that view. Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. ...such things as fundamentality, generality and
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. ...such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. Brent Meeker But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation? It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than prayer), but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is metaphysics rather than science. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always have at least one fixed point that is unexplainable. This is somewhat beside the point anyway. Positivists (and all foundationists) suppose that there are some things known directly, without explanation, usually by direct perception or by introspection. Just as mystics suppose some things are directly intuited or revealed by meditation, e.g. ...such things as fundamentality, generality and beauty. Brent Meeker But then why value a scientific explanation over a mystical explanation? Because, as you pointed out, it works. When knowledge is tested against perception and intersubjective agreement on that perception (to rule out hallucinations) it seems to be reliable. When it's based on mystic revelation, it's not. I was referring to Tom's statement you quoted when I said it was somewhat beside the point. It's straightforward when we stick to science as a method for making predictions and creating technology (penicillin works better than prayer), but where does this leave the example you raised recently, the interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that some journals will not publish papers on this subject on positivist grounds, i.e. that it is metaphysics rather than science. Some physics journals and proceeding of symposia do publish papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. This kind of metaphysics (literally about physics) is useful in guiding the development of new theories. When Einstein developed general relativity he assumed some meta- rules, e.g. no derivatives higher than second. Since there's a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity at the ontological level, the resolution is likely to require something that is meta- relative to the current theories. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Brent: ' the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand' MP: as I argued in my response to Stathis, the 'part we can investigate and understand' can be ever expanding and the exactitude of our understanding can in time reach just about arbitrarily fine degrees of resolution. Or, which would be more the worry for 'emulators' who wished to remain invisible, the emulation would need to be able to be controlled to a finer resolution than scientists' contemporary measurement skills. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: John Mikes wrote: This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get into it is by Mark's remark: I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe that is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking stick. --Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000 in the bank in 100s and counted them 37,38,39, - then stopped and said: well. so far it was a match, let me believe that the rest is also OK. We are much earlier into the completion of what we know about our existence. Then again you both wrote about simulations (even: emulations) horribile dictu: The key point is that a wilful entity or conspiracy seeks to emulate all or part of another wilful entity's world to the extent that the latter can't tell the difference when the change is made. Untold: restricted to details known Nobody can simulate or look for unknown details. Of course the latter can't tell whether 'simulated' if looking only at the portion that matches. (I am not clear about wilful entity.) The fallacy of the simulational business is more than that: you (get?) simulate(d?) HERE and NOW and continue HERE under these conditions, while THERE the simulacron lives under THOSE conditions and in no time flat becomes different from you original. That the world of THERE is also simulated? Just add: and lives exactly the life of THIS one? then the whole thing is a hoax, a mirror image, no alternate. * Jason: A reversible computation is one that has a 1 to 1 mapping between input and output. Going up in the $100 bills to #45, the map may change. Don't tell me please such Brunoistic examples like 1+1 = 2, go out into the 'life' of a universe (or of ourselves). How can you reverse the infinite variations of a life-computation? You have got to restrict it into a limited model and work on that. Like: reductionist physics (QM?) . It seems to me like a return to Carnot, disregarding Prigogine, who improved the case to some (moderate) extent from the classical reversible even isotherm thermodynmx, from which I used to form the joke (as junior in college) that it shows how processes would [theoretically] proceed, wouldn't they proceed as they do proceed. We can reverse a closed model content, all clearly known in it. Not life. Just count into the simulations and reversals the constantly (nonlinearly!) changing world not allowing any 'fixing' of circumstances/processes. No static daydreams. * Jason: Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and uncomputable to those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the universe evolves deterministically. - right on. I just wonder why all those many worlds are 'emulated' after this one feeble universe we pretend to observe. In my 'narrative' I allowed 'universes' of unrestricted variety of course 'nobody' can ever continue in a totally different 'universe' a life from here. With e.g. a different logic. * Are you saying that a perfectly efficient computer could not be built or that the physics of this universe are not computable? You mean: with unrestricted, filled memory banks working on the limitless variations nature CAN provide? A perfectly efficient computer could then compute this universe as well. Maybe not these binary embryos we are proudly using today. Indeed: you ask about the physics of this universe, is it the reductionist science we are fed with in college? That may be computed. Discounting the randomness and indeterminism shown for members of this quantum universe of ours. Sorry for the length and my unorthodoxy. John M You seem to have two themes: (1) The universe is more complex than current physics makes it out and may not be computable, and in comparison, (2) Our ability to comprehend things is quite limited. But these two together imply that is quite possible that we live in a simulation. If the simulation is being performed in a universe like ours, one with very complex physics, then the physics of that universe could provide a simulation that was beyond our ability to discern as a simulation - because of our limited comprehension. The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Mark Peaty wrote: Brent: ' the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand' MP: as I argued in my response to Stathis, the 'part we can investigate and understand' can be ever expanding and the exactitude of our understanding can in time reach just about arbitrarily fine degrees of resolution. Or, which would be more the worry for 'emulators' who wished to remain invisible, the emulation would need to be able to be controlled to a finer resolution than scientists' contemporary measurement skills. Which scientists...ours of theirs? I don't disagree, but suppose the level at which we could see it was a simulation was the Planck scale. This is not entirely speculative, since the Planck scale is where a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity must manifest itself. If the Simulators were only interested in how the world operates far above that level then maybe they were sloppy and just left potential inconsistencies in the simulation. The program will crash when we do the right experiment to reveal it. But that level is thirty orders of magnitude smaller than anything we can reach now. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
On 2/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we have been through this before actually. Thanks for being patient, sometimes I just like to argue :0 Can you point to any aspect of the world which can't be simulated no matter how powerful the computer? MP: For us mortals, this universe is in many respects infinite. If 'someone' IS running it within a 'computer' then they have to be running all of it. Why? Because humans can do science. This means that our little brains can come up with questions about everything and we do; in fact we can say that 'we' - collectively the whole human species - must have asked questions about everything we already have beliefs about. The formal and systematic way of checking out answers to practical questions of fact is through the assertion of an explanation which is able to make specific predictions because we assume causality, then someone sets up experimental situation to test the predictions. Now the experiment will either falsify the assertions of the explanation because the predictions were not correct, or the predictions will turn out to be correct in which case the assertions will gain strength as explanatory tools and become linked, in the minds of ever more people, with all the other assertions that didn't get falsified. The more this happens, the more the universe is constrained to comply with our explanations. 'So what?' you say. Well, as curious people keep asking questions about their world, so more and more pervasive and detailed application of scientific theory occurs. Curious kids grow up to be curious adults, and some are always going to refuse to be fobbed off with the 'because it IS' response. And the ways of asking questions are potentially infinite because answers get re-input as new questions, which more or less guarantees non-linear results. So newer experiments get created which just by the by incorporate new juxtapositions of previously accepted results as part of the experimental set up. Over time this effectively demands that the accepted theories have to be 100% correct because any slight errors will be multiplied over time. Now I realise this is a rather informal way of asserting this but, as I said before, plain-English is what I want and yes I know this does seem to make things long winded. But the bottom line here is that, over time, scientific theories are constrained to be ever more exactly correct with less and less margin for error. In effect the human species will test just about all significant and practically useful theories to vanishingly small tolerances so whatever might be 'simulating' the universe as seen from planet Earth has ever less margin for error. Simply put the 'universe in the bottle' has to be perfectly consistent and ontologically complete. So the conspiratorial simulators must have 'computers' that are able to increase their representational power to infinite precision when needed. And can the conspirators predict before they start the simulation running just precisely what tests and outlandish ideas the humans will come up with? I think not. I think this means that Stathis's 'no matter how powerful the computer?' is a bit of a cheat [nothing personal you understand; what I am saying is that I think the whole project of Mathematical universe and 'Comp' may be just a very sophisticated house of cards.] I believe that either all of our universe as seen on, at and from planet Earth is being simulated perfectly or none of it is being simulated at all. God or an advanced civilization could make an actual universe by gathering raw material (whatever that might mean), setting starting parameters and laws of physics, then letting it all unfold: Big Bang, planets, evolution, the US invading Iraq, etc. Alternatively, God or an advanced civilization could build a simulated universe on a big computer by starting with virtual raw material, setting starting parameters and laws of physics, then clicking run. Is there any way from the inside of determining whether we are more likely living in one than the other? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
