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

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/11/2019 9:33 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:43:40AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:


On 9/9/2019 10:16 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:34:19PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:

On 9/9/2019 6:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:

Why escape to space when there a lots of resources here?  An AI with
access to everything connected to the internet shouldn't have any
trouble taking control of the Earth.

[...]

You reason like human - "I will stay here because it is nice and I can
have internet".

[...]

Cooperation is one of our most important survival strategies.  Lone
human beings are food for vultures.

  Humans in tribes rule the world.


This is just one of those godlike delusions I have written
about. Either this or you can name even one such tribe. Hint: explain
how many earthquakes and volcanic eruptions those rulers have
prevented during last decade.


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




[...]

nice air of being godlike. Again, I guess AI will have no need for
feeling like this, or not much of feelings at all. Feeling is
adversarial to judgement.

I disagree.  Feeling is just the mark of value,  and values are
necessary for judgement, at least any judgment of what action to
take.

I disagree. I can easily give something a value without feeling about
it. Example: gold is just a yellow metal. I know other people value it
a lot, so I might preserve it for trading, but it does not make very
good knives. Highly impractical in the woods or for plowing
fields. But it might be used for catching fish, perhaps. They seem to
like swallowing little blinking things attached to a hook.


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


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fdccc63f-60ac-6644-adc4-60151b17a878%40verizon.net.

Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

[Alan Grayson]

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b9ee8443-27de-4136-8ab8-a6367a5bddae%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:43:40AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/9/2019 10:16 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:34:19PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>On 9/9/2019 6:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:40:44PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
> >>>List wrote:
> Why escape to space when there a lots of resources here?  An AI with
> access to everything connected to the internet shouldn't have any
> trouble taking control of the Earth.
[...]

You reason like human - "I will stay here because it is nice and I can
have internet".

[...]
> Cooperation is one of our most important survival strategies.  Lone
> human beings are food for vultures. 
> 
>  Humans in tribes rule the world.

   
This is just one of those godlike delusions I have written
about. Either this or you can name even one such tribe. Hint: explain
how many earthquakes and volcanic eruptions those rulers have
prevented during last decade.

[...]
> >nice air of being godlike. Again, I guess AI will have no need for
> >feeling like this, or not much of feelings at all. Feeling is
> >adversarial to judgement.
> 
> I disagree.  Feeling is just the mark of value,  and values are
> necessary for judgement, at least any judgment of what action to
> take.  

I disagree. I can easily give something a value without feeling about
it. Example: gold is just a yellow metal. I know other people value it
a lot, so I might preserve it for trading, but it does not make very
good knives. Highly impractical in the woods or for plowing
fields. But it might be used for catching fish, perhaps. They seem to
like swallowing little blinking things attached to a hook.

> So the question is what will the AI value?  Will it value
> information?  

Nothing can be said for sure and there may be many different kinds of
AI. But if it values nothing, it will have no need to do anything.

[...]
> >I assume that ultimately, AI will want to go somewhere safe, and Earth
> >is full of crazy apes with big guns.
> 
> Assuming this super-AI values self-preservation (which it might not)
> it will make copies of itself and it will easily dispose of all the
> apes via it's control of the power grid, hospitals, nuclear power
> plants, biomedical research facitlities, ballistic missiles, etc.

There are catastrophic events for which the best bet would be to
colonize a sphere of, say, 1000ly radius. A 500ly radius is not bad
either, and might be more practical (sending an end-to-end message
would only take 1000 years).

[...]
> >maybe exchange of services. During that phase AI will see if there is
> >a prospect of upgrading humans, in order to have companionship in
> >space.
> 
> Why would it want companionship?  Even many quite smart animals are
> not social.  I don't see any reason the super-AI would care one whit
> about humans, except maybe as curiosities...the way some people like
> chihuahuas.

The way I spelled it you could read my words as "partnership". There
will be no partnership, however. Humans on board will serve useful
purposes, similar to how we use canaries, lab rats and well behaving
monkeys. Some humans may even reach a status of cat.

I suppose AI will want to differentiate its mechanisms in order to
minimize chance of its own catastrophic failure. In Fukushima and
Charnobyl humans did the shitty jobs, not robots. From what I have
read, hard radiation broke the wiring of robots and caused all kinds
of material degradation (with suggestion it went so fast that a robot
could not do much). A human can survive a huge EMP and keep going
(even if years later he will die, he could do some useful job first,
like restarting systems).

There might be better choice of materials and production processes to
improve survival of electronics - Voyagers and Pioneers keep up after
fourty years, the cause of failure here is decaying power
supply. OTOH, the instruments they have are all quite primitive by
today measures - for example, no cpu (IIRC).

However, if one assumes that one does not know everything - and I
expect AI to be free from godlike delusions so common among crazy apes
- then one will have to create many failsafe mechanisms, working
synergically towards the goal of repairing damages that AI may
suffer. Having some biological organisms, loyal to AI, would just be
part of this strategy.

[...]
> The AI isn't silicon, it's a program.  It can have new components
> made or even transition to different hardware (c.f. quantum
> computers).

A chess playing software and computer on which it runs are two
different things, agreed. Because the computer can be turned off or
used to run something else.

The AI, the coffee vending machine and the human are inseparable duo
of software and hardware. Just MHO. Even if separation can be done, it
might not be trivial.

I am quite sure there will be a lots of silicon in AI. And plenty of
other 

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal 
>
> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality,
> then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many
> times to be a complete nonsense.
>
>
> Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references.
>
> Follow the Wikipedia entry on quantum suicide.
>
> That is not what I mean by a  reference.
>

I later gave a reference to the paper by Mallah -- whom you know of,
apparently. The paper is available at

https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187



[.]



> None of this has anything to do with wave-packet reduction, so you can
> rest easy.
>
>
> You lost me here. With the wave reduction, there is just no quantum
> immortality at all, nor even quantum suicide. I guess I mess something.
>

The argument was that QI makes no sense, even in a many-worlds setting.


> The only “reasonable” critics was the one done by Jacques Mallah on this
> list, which claims that if QI or MI is correct, we should expect to be very
> old. But Quentin answered this validly: we expect in all situation to be
> just a bit older than where we remember coming from, and the paradox comes
> from a confusing between relative and absolute self-sampling on the states
> or histories.
>

The trouble with this is that neither ASSA and RSSA is a law of nature. As
I have said, from the 1p perspective, I live more years between 100 and
1000 than between 1 and 100. So I expect to be very old. What we remember
is actually irrelevant -- we can always check our birth certificate if we
forget how old we are. In other words, we can use external sources to
refresh memories. What we personally remember at any instant is variable
and unreliable. Check against external references.


> Typically, also, old and young are not absolute concept.
>

No, they are concepts relative to actual life span -- you are always at
your youngest when you are born, and at your oldest just before you die.

With mechanism or quantum mechanics without collapse, we can say that we
> are always young.
>

Another good reason for abandoning mechanism.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTM7c97pmzXq5Fb%3D1nq%2BbdxfkqojZn%3DMXsuvhC%2BmLfy8A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
>>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
>>> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
>>> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
>>> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
>>> > branch if this scenario is true.
>>>
>>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
>>> than even the oldest people we know.
>>
>>
>> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if
>> QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
>> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
>> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
>> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
>> not imply QI.
>>
>
>
> Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective
> level it only decreases.
>

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

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

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ92bOxHciguxF6RcVx8Yd1Tmt2D43i2ATF0-ABgge8tw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/11/2019 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
>>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
>>> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
>>> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
>>> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
>>> > branch if this scenario is true.
>>>
>>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
>>> than even the oldest people we know.
>>>
>>>
>> You could be very old, but (perhaps temporarily) amnesiac.
>>
>>
>> Then it's strange that so many other people and photographs happen to
>> agree with my memory.  Must be a conspiracy to hide the secret of quantum
>> immortality.  It would certainly be unpopular once people thought about
>> what it means.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> I mean amnesic regarding the full extent of your billion+ year life.
>
>
> But if I don't remember it, was it me?
>

You might remember more when you wake up.  I think eventually the
probability of your consciousness continuing through an old-age body gets
so low that more likely continuation paths occur, such as waking up as a
technologically advanced being playing sim-human, or having your ever
diminishing conscious awareness eventually intersect with another similarly
diminished consciousness (perhaps that of a brain still developing in a
womb or an egg).

Jason

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUgH_9wOkx89yFwyMQjTio2x7VCVEoMYqVpqjLy8iqXhPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/11/2019 9:55 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective 
level it only decreases.


There's the crux of the question.  The measure of what, or whom?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/513a427f-32c2-22c0-4d12-332fc395b4c9%40verizon.net.

Re: Quantum immortality

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/11/2019 9:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:



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

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


You could be very old, but (perhaps temporarily) amnesiac.


Then it's strange that so many other people and photographs happen
to agree with my memory.  Must be a conspiracy to hide the secret
of quantum immortality.  It would certainly be unpopular once
people thought about what it means.


Brent



I mean amnesic regarding the full extent of your billion+ year life.


But if I don't remember it, was it me?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/95204b56-50c3-f4ba-5fb9-6a4c2a8a75b0%40verizon.net.

Re: Observation versus assumption

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>

>>you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes to
>> 8 does that mean the number 7 no longer exists? Are there now two integer
>> 8's and how can one be distinguished from the other?
>>
>
> >> *Imagine a Turing machine that spit out the tape like a receipt and
> created a new copy to work on before it changed any bit on the tape. This
> machine is still universal is it not?  You could run a conscious AI on it,
> could you not?  What is the Turing machine changing? *
>

I don't get what you're driving at Jason the Turing Machine is made of
matter that obeys the laws of physics and the machine has moving parts. And
if it's going to make a copy of anything or even just read a tape the
machine is going to have to change the arrangement of parts. From the start
to the end lots and lots of things have changed.

> All states it reaches continue to exist unchanged.


What about the matter used to make the copies?

John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv2f15F5beqDWKOuf_Cytsqf0M_K8f2tzyeSP3QG_V3cKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/11/2019 5:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett > a écrit :


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux
mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it
is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible
moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have
never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death.


ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling
from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young
given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never
young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since
your birth, one year at a time. It is just that there are more
years after any given age than before that age.


And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the 
case, so something is wrong with your theory.


Or with the theory of quantum immortality and MWI.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4e2d2632-36d8-ea84-7f24-1e056dfd5738%40verizon.net.

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2019, at 21:28, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 12:09:19 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 12:51, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 5:40:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 7 Sep 2019, at 07:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>>> >> 
>>> >> I would put "Horganism" another way. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their 
>>> application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final ones to 
>>> be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are not.) There is no 
>>> settled story of gravity yet, much less consciousness. One reads about a 
>>> new story of gravity in science news every week, it seems. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> David Chalmers' conclusion is ... 
>>> >> 
>>> >> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason 
>>> to take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can 
>>> find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this view 
>>> would immediately become the most promising solution to the mind–body 
>>> problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and sustained 
>>> attention." 
>>> >> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf 
>>> > 
>>> > Zero predictive power and it's not clear that it's consistent with the 
>>> rest of neurophysics. 
>>>
>>> + zero explanation power at all, also. 
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> But panpsychism more explanatory than consciousness from numbers. 
>>
>>
>>
>> “Pan” is not well defined. The proposition  "my cup of tea is conscious” 
>> is not well defined for me.
>>
>> What is the panpsychist theory of consciousness? If everything is 
>> conscious, “consciousness seems trivialised”.
>>
>> With the number, and their + and * laws, we can define the universal 
>> digital machine, and study what they can prove about themselves, including 
>> what they cannot prove, but still guess, and incompleteness makes the 
>> standard definition of the greeks making sense. The universal machine has 
>> already an interesting discourse about, not just his body, but its souls, 
>> its physics, etc.  
>>
>> It is coherent with both AI, and the theory of evolution (which is 
>> already used on mechanism).
>>
>> Consciousness also get a role, as it provides semantic which accelerate 
>> the computation relatively to the universal machine which run the subject, 
>> allowing a greater number of degree of freedom.
>>
>> A very interesting video on the Limbic system, and its relation with 
>> emotion is here:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAOnSbDSaOw
>>
>> Panpsychism assumes matter, making it inconsistent with digital mechanism 
>> (that is not obvious, ask for explanation if interested). 
>> But even without that still a bit ignored fact, panpsychism makes the 
>> functioning of the brain quite mysterious. With mechanism, consciousness is 
>> a mathematical semantic fixed point, related to the neural loops, whose 
>> importance is well illustrated in that video.
>>
>> Panpsychism has not yet a testable theory, which might change tomorrow, 
>> but again, it speculates on very strong axioms, which cannot be used to 
>> invalidate a much simpler theory, not yet contradicted by any facts.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>   consciousness is a mathematical semantic fixed point, related to the 
> neural loops
>
> It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
>
> "is" could be a descriptive relationship, like a program of a tornado is 
> not a tornado.
>
>
> No problem with this.
>
>
>
> But if tornados are just mental creations, 
>
>
> Mechanism does not implies this. Tornados are not ontologically real, but 
> they are phenomenologically real, and their existence depends in fine on 
> natural number relations, which are not mental creation, at least not human 
> mental creations.
>
>
>
>
> where everything mental is a numerical fixed point, then all reality *is* 
> numerical simulation.
>
>
> Consciousness and other semantical notion are fixed point of partially 
> computable functional. But most of arithmetic are not, unless you intent 
> them, but them it relies on fixed point of transformation in your brain, 
> which, as a phenomenological object, will be a fixed point at a different 
> level. It is hard to describe this without getting a bit more technical. I 
> might have some opportunity to explain more on this later.
>
> Bruno
>
>


It seems though that while I was referencing a material pan[propto]psychism 
- where elementary constituents of matter that ends up in an integrated 
brain have proto-experientiality - what you have is a *numerical 
pan[proto[psychism*, where there are elementary numeral constituents in 
things that are not brains that 

Re: Observation versus assumption

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Sep 2019, at 20:54, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:06 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >>> Numbers can change all the time.
> 
>  >> you can't answer the simplest questions concerning that. If 7 changes to 
> 8 does that mean the number 7 no longer exists?
> 
> > Indeed, locally, 
> 
> We're only talking about integers here, so what on earth does "locally" mean 
> in that context?

The explanation was in my post, but ou deleted it.

See papers by handy, or the book by Odifreddy, which explains that computer 
science is basically an abstract theory of localness. That is why physical real 
FTL action at a distance would be a threat to mechanism, despite some form of 
physical non-localness are still possible. 

Eventually “locality” admits an abstract definition, which has different 
phenomenological instantiation in each mode of self-reference. The arithmetical 
Quantum locality is given by the “non-orthogonality” of the information 
available “currently”. For example, in the WM duplication experience, in the 
formalism of the material hypostases, W and M are local to H, but Vienna is 
orthogonal to both of them. You can express this using the special modal logic 
of the []p & <>t hypostase.

More simply, like in the passage deleted, 7 is changed into 8 relatively to the 
memory of some Register or Turing machine’s (local) tape.





>  
> > When a diophantine polynomial simulates a register machine
> 
> All machines change. No polynomial changes. Therefore a polynomial can not 
> simulate a register machine or any other sort of machine.


Then GR is false.

You assume a primary physical time. I do not, and can explain all the discourse 
of the average universal machine in arithmetic about time, change, including 
the locally first person plural sharable time, and the personal subjective 
time. 

But, here, like Einstein said in his GR context, "time is an illusion, albeit a 
persistent one". Lol.





>  
> > in the arithmetical reality, and add 1 to a register containing 7, 7 is no 
> > more in that register, but 8 is.
> 
> And how exactly does a pure number add 1 to a register, or add 1 to anything, 
> how does a pure number *do* anything at all?

Good question!
You have to represent the register itself by a number. Logicians represent a 
“register” (R1, R2, R3) , like (4, 4, 6) in arithmetic by

2^(4+1) * 3^(4+1) * 5^(6+1)

2, 3, 5, … are the prime numbers. The “+1” is used to be able to put 0 in a 
register, without destroying it!

A computation could be described, here, by a sequence of register, with the 
result placed in the first entry of the register.

That computation will be represented by a number, obtained by reapllying the 
same idea, like


2^(2^(4+1) * 3^(4+1) * 5^(6+1)) 
* 3^(2^(5+1) * 3^(4+1) * 5^(6+1))
 * 5^(2^(6+1) * 3^(4+1) * 5^(6+1))
 * 7^(2^(0+1) * 3^(4+1) * 5^(6+1))

You can see the changes (!) in the register R1 (4 ==> 5 ==> 6 ==> 0).

The actual real computation will be in the arithmetical truth concerning such 
numbers, involved in more complex relation with respect to the both the 
arithmetical reality and the way they “incarnate” itself in the arithmetical 
reality (assumed at the start).

It is of the upmost importance to NOT confuse the arithmetical reality with 
*any* theory of the arithmetical reality. It is then a fact that the 
arithmetical reality implements all computations, in a block-universe way.
The rest will come to the partially computable (and thus partially not 
computable) first person indeterminacies singular and plural.




> And even if it has somehow actually done something if its a machine then 
> other parts of the machine need to detect that a change has been made, so how 
> can the integer 9 tell if the integer 7 is in the “register"


Simple programs can do that, relatively to the universal number you want. You 
claim that there is a sort of winning universal number U. I understand the 
incredible discourse of the physicists: U = GR + QFT.
One problem: it is inconsistent. Second problem: how it selects the 
computations in arithmetic (as it should if Mechanism is correct).

With digital mechanism, we get a many histories interpretation of arithmetic, 
obtained by those machines in arithmetic.







> (whatever the hell a register made of pure numbers is) or not? And for the 
> integer 9 to detect a change in the pure number register it must have 
> information on the contents of that pure number register before the change 
> was made, where and how was that information stored?


By using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, you can store information in 
the exponent of a product of prime numbers. It is the most standard way, used 
by Gödel in its 1931 paper. Like illustrated above.








> 
> > What you miss is that the arithmetical reality is Turing universal. It is 
> > easy to structure a Model M (a Reality) satisfying the Peano axiom into a 
> > combinatory algebra.
>  ab = c
> Is defined 

Re: Quantum immortality

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 9/10/2019 11:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


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

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

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

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


The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the 
measure when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes 
exponentially less likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is 
given that there will be a very old version of you in some corner of 
the world, whether distant in time, space or in a parallel universe. 
You cannot avoid surviving to become this version if it actually exists.


Right.  Your observation of your age is conditional on your having 
survived.  So that your survival to a great age is improbable is irrelevant.


Brent


--
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%3D2ypW3Nz0gZBF%2BqO3OYq%3DQyPJh_COrJmGGEQM0ssmWn2cf9g%40mail.gmail.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/7ab1fb4d-8982-aa73-56f1-ba8f202fd150%40verizon.net.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 00:51, smitra  wrote:

> Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves
> according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures
> in this description. Whether or not one believes that the Born rule can
> be derived or not, what matters in practice is that you'll end up having
> to use it, so you have to assign a measure for observations that is
> given by the summation of the squared modulus of the states that
> correspond to those observations. The information about personal
> identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one
> cannot insert this in an ad hoc way.
>
> Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states
> that correspond to extremely old observers is small.


This means that if you don’t know if you are young or very old and have to
guess, you are more likely to be right if you guess that you are young. But
it does not mean that you won’t inevitably become very old.
-- 
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%3D2ypU%2Bi1zyWR1Bfs97PDB3RZ5GCw%2BW7ApsS1T-Sxijh7tNdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019, 3:15 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote
>
> >> if the computational capacity of the universe is finite (and I'm not
>> saying it is I'm saying if) then n+1 can NOT always be divided by 2 and
>> Euclid was flat out wrong.
>>
>> *> You cannot invoke your personal ontological commitment in a domain
>> which does not assume it.*
>>
>
> To hell with personal ontological commitments, the only thing I'm
> "invoking" is the idea that if something can't be done then something
> can't be done. And the great thing about tautologies is that all of them
> are always 100% true.
>

1. How do you know when something can't be done? If we can't factor some
number in this universe you haven't proved there's not a bigger universe
elsewhere where it can be factored.  Either way you are forced to define
your ontology.



> *> Numbers can change all the time. *
>>
>
> So you keep saying, and yet you can't answer the simplest questions
> concerning that. If 7 changes to 8 does that mean the number 7 no longer
> exists? Are there now two integer 8's and how can one be distinguished from
> the other?
>

2. Imagine a Turing machine that spit out the tape like a receipt and
created a new copy to work on before it changed any bit on the tape. This
machine is still universal is it not?  You could run a conscious AI on it,
could you not?  What is the Turing machine changing? All states it reaches
continue to exist unchanged.



>
>> > *“Primary” means, as I said often: “in need to be assumed”.*
>>
>
> So you think mathematics needs to be assumed while I think physics needs
> to be assumed. That could be an interesting debate but it's irrelevant if
> we're talking about computation or intelagent behavior or consciousness.
> After both you and me have made our assumptions then we both need to work
> out the consequences of those assumptions, so eventually we'll both come to
> physics, and then chemistry, and then biology, and then humans making
> physical Turing Machines.  Regardless of if we start with numbers or the
> quark gluon plasma of the Big Bang it doesn't matter because neither are
> conducive with intelligence or consciousness, although the consequences of
> those things may be after 13.8 billion years.
>
>
>> > Which is what you do to say that not all odd numbers + 1 are divisible
>> by 2,
>>
>
> I said that would be true *IF* the computational capacity of the
> expanding accelerating universe is finite, and I don't know if it is or
> isn't.
>
>
>> > *you confuse the mathematical reality with the physical reality, which
>> is basically Aristotle Metaphysics.*
>>
>
> And that is my cue to skip to the next paragraph because nothing
> intelagent ever follows.
>

3. Which do you regard as the higher ideal, never being wrong or the
pursuit of truth?


Jason

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUhmmOkBRpzRHehg%2ByyB9itrB3uqBZf6fjTygt%3D7tFEOrg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Jason Resch]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
 > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
 > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
 > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
 > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
 > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on
 our
 > branch if this scenario is true.

 My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
 than even the oldest people we know.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality:
>>> if QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
>>> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
>>> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
>>> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
>>> not imply QI.
>>>
>>
>> The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the measure
>> when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes exponentially less
>> likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is given that there will be
>> a very old version of you in some corner of the world, whether distant in
>> time, space or in a parallel universe. You cannot avoid surviving to become
>> this version if it actually exists.
>>
>
> I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal --
> it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I
> am not sure what measure you think is exponentially decreasing. My personal
> measure of life-years is clearly greater for periods after age 120 yr than
> for the period before. Since this happens for everyone, the collective
> measure over all people is likewise exponentially greater. Even if one
> considers an infinite universe, with an infinite number of copies of me,
> all of these are immortal on the basis of the QI argument. So, again, the
> measure of old age is not decreasing with age.
>
> The situation is different for quantum suicide in the absence of quantum
> immortality. Then one is deliberately courting death on ever run of the
> scenario, and the number of survivors inevitably decreases, even if one
> copy survives indefinitely.
>

Playing Schrodinger's cat over and over with you as the cat is about the
same as living a year. It's just that each iteration of Schrodinger's cat
has a 50% chance if killing you while living another year as a healthy
adult let's say, has a 1 in 900 chance if killing you.  But the
consequences and conclusions are the same in either scenario.

Jason



>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX
> 6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%40mail.gmail.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/CA%2BBCJUjH793sEHDjDM-CVrsc8aH6LpdEkmXOCYWBSZczM9wnYA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Jason Resch]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
>> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
>> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
>> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
>> > branch if this scenario is true.
>>
>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
>> than even the oldest people we know.
>
>
> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if
> QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
> not imply QI.
>


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

Jason


>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRd0dyOn_JreAHuEfBKpWuSP5f2VkBpO9rZ4QbG
> 79sUQQ%40mail.gmail.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/CA%2BBCJUjKYK4Ndve2ddO%2B9qCcC2MedwLcccjZYwd0J0_3mdY9Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Jason Resch]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
>> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
>> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
>> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
>> > branch if this scenario is true.
>>
>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
>> than even the oldest people we know.
>>
>>
> You could be very old, but (perhaps temporarily) amnesiac.
>
>
> Then it's strange that so many other people and photographs happen to
> agree with my memory.  Must be a conspiracy to hide the secret of quantum
> immortality.  It would certainly be unpopular once people thought about
> what it means.
>
>
> Brent
>


I mean amnesic regarding the full extent of your billion+ year life.

Jason



> --
> 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/0c9b0ed2-f183-c862-8503-428da91d0964%40verizon.net
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhfKpJkZjNDvbd4BrnPwadh-9dzy%2BjG1-yuJ25H378h%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Sep 2019, at 21:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 12:09:19 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 12:51, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 5:40:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> > On 7 Sep 2019, at 07:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> > > wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> I would put "Horganism" another way. 
>> >> 
>> >> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their 
>> >> application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final ones 
>> >> to be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are not.) There 
>> >> is no settled story of gravity yet, much less consciousness. One reads 
>> >> about a new story of gravity in science news every week, it seems. 
>> >> 
>> >> David Chalmers' conclusion is ... 
>> >> 
>> >> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason to 
>> >> take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can find 
>> >> a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this view 
>> >> would immediately become the most promising solution to the mind–body 
>> >> problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and sustained 
>> >> attention." 
>> >> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf 
>> >>  
>> > 
>> > Zero predictive power and it's not clear that it's consistent with the 
>> > rest of neurophysics. 
>> 
>> + zero explanation power at all, also. 
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But panpsychism more explanatory than consciousness from numbers. 
> 
> 
> “Pan” is not well defined. The proposition  "my cup of tea is conscious” is 
> not well defined for me.
> 
> What is the panpsychist theory of consciousness? If everything is conscious, 
> “consciousness seems trivialised”.
> 
> With the number, and their + and * laws, we can define the universal digital 
> machine, and study what they can prove about themselves, including what they 
> cannot prove, but still guess, and incompleteness makes the standard 
> definition of the greeks making sense. The universal machine has already an 
> interesting discourse about, not just his body, but its souls, its physics, 
> etc.  
> 
> It is coherent with both AI, and the theory of evolution (which is already 
> used on mechanism).
> 
> Consciousness also get a role, as it provides semantic which accelerate the 
> computation relatively to the universal machine which run the subject, 
> allowing a greater number of degree of freedom.
> 
> A very interesting video on the Limbic system, and its relation with emotion 
> is here:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAOnSbDSaOw 
> 
> 
> Panpsychism assumes matter, making it inconsistent with digital mechanism 
> (that is not obvious, ask for explanation if interested). 
> But even without that still a bit ignored fact, panpsychism makes the 
> functioning of the brain quite mysterious. With mechanism, consciousness is a 
> mathematical semantic fixed point, related to the neural loops, whose 
> importance is well illustrated in that video.
> 
> Panpsychism has not yet a testable theory, which might change tomorrow, but 
> again, it speculates on very strong axioms, which cannot be used to 
> invalidate a much simpler theory, not yet contradicted by any facts.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>   consciousness is a mathematical semantic fixed point, related to the neural 
> loops
> 
> It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
> 
> "is" could be a descriptive relationship, like a program of a tornado is not 
> a tornado.

No problem with this.


> 
> But if tornados are just mental creations,

Mechanism does not implies this. Tornados are not ontologically real, but they 
are phenomenologically real, and their existence depends in fine on natural 
number relations, which are not mental creation, at least not human mental 
creations.




> where everything mental is a numerical fixed point, then all reality *is* 
> numerical simulation.

Consciousness and other semantical notion are fixed point of partially 
computable functional. But most of arithmetic are not, unless you intent them, 
but them it relies on fixed point of transformation in your brain, which, as a 
phenomenological object, will be a fixed point at a different level. It is hard 
to describe this without getting a bit more technical. I might have some 
opportunity to explain more on this later.

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 
> 

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:45 PM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> On 7 Sep 2019, at 08:04, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
 On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 3:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 >>> > wrote:
 On 9/6/2019 10:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many 
> Worlds.
> 
> What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
 
 None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from 
 it...which I think is impossible.  But it does go a way toward making the 
 story of measurement more consistent.
 
 Amplify the above statement.
 
 Even Zurek, who starts from a many worlds perspective, thinks that 
 ultimately one can abandon the non-seen worlds as irrelevant.
>>> 
>>> But irrelevant does not mean false. So it is irrelevant in physics, but it 
>>> is not irrelevant in theology. It might plays a role concerning the 
>>> interpretation of death, like with quantum immortality.
>>> 
>>> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, 
>>> then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many 
>>> times to be a complete nonsense.
>> 
>> Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references.
> Follow the Wikipedia entry on quantum suicide.
> 
That is not what I mean by a  reference.


> The main problem with the idea of quantum immortality is that not all 
> life-threatening events that one can encounter are in the form of alternative 
> outcomes to quantum processes.
> 
The point is that at each instant we have an infinity (plausibly aleph_1, at 
least aleph_0) alternate accessible histories, and it is up to you to prove 
that when we die in some history, we die in all. That is dubious, because there 
are always consistent extensions (but of course I use Mechanism here).





> Quantum suicide is an attempt to overcome this problem by linking death or 
> survival directly to the outcome of a particular quantum process. David 
> Deutsch was sceptical that this worked:
>  'Physicist David Deutsch , 
> though a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation, states regarding 
> quantum suicide that "that way of applying probabilities does not follow 
> directly from quantum theory, as the usual one does. It requires an 
> additional assumption, namely that when making decisions one should ignore 
> the histories in which the decision-maker is absent[M]y guess is that the 
> assumption is false."
> Tegmark was also doubtful about the chances for quantum immortality -- 
> pointing out that dying is rarely a binary event; it is more often the result 
> of a slow cumulative process.
> 
> Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum 
> immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who are 
> considerably older than the normal life expectancy
> 
That makes no sense. The argument rest typically on the first person, not the 
first person plural.



> -- and we do not see people who are two or three hundred years old.
> 
Just compute the probability. That would be akin to a white rabbit. The 
argument concerns only the first person experience, and it can involved amnesia.



> Even if the probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of 
> people born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our 
> branch if this scenario is true.
> 
The probability is the same as the one with a beam splitter (some “half 
mirror”) and all photons going on the same path. Nobody as seen this. But if 
you kill yourself if the photon go in the non rare path, you will see the 
photon going on the rare path with probability one, by the cul-de-sac principle 
(again, I use, like Everett; the mechanist hypothesis).




> 
>> That would be an indice that Mechanism is false, given that quantum 
>> immortality is deduce here from the already much more obvious arithmetical 
>> immortality, which is disturbing, but hard to avoid.
> 
> Well, as you know, I consider mechanism to be false in any case, so the 
> failure of quantum immortality is no news to me.
> 
> 


Mechanism implies a form of computational immortality. Non mechanism is 
neutral, especially in absence of some non mechanist theory of mind (and 
matter).



> 
>> Are you saying that quantum suicide is also a non-sense (metaphysically, it 
>> is a practical non-sense).
> 
> It relates to the standard problem for Many worlds theory -- if a quantum 
> experiment with binary outcomes is performed many times, there will always be 
> observers who see major deviations from the expected quantum probabilities. 
> In which 

Re: Observation versus assumption

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would be 
> nice to explain what.
> 
> Why? So you can dismiss it until a Stanford entry is written for you to 
> dismiss with the infamous correct scientific attitude we see advertised here 
> in recent months? There are dozens of ways to refute the premisses of not one 
> but many things you say. Assuming an albeit countable infinity of 
> transcendental objects/properties ontologically, while accusing 
> "physicalists" for assuming infinities maliciously for years… 

That contradicts directly my premise, which are YD and CT. On the contrary, I 
have insisted many times that analysis and physics are in the derived 
phenomenology of the universal machine. I do not assume anything more than what 
is needed to prove the existence of the computations. 



> 
> Which is it by the way? Do they assume such because a) they are evil or 
> because b) they are stupid/naive? Or is it a superposition?

Physicalist have to assume some magical things to explain how some computations 
are “more real” or “the only one able to make a computation supporting 
consciousness”. But then, it has to be non Turing emulable, because, if it is, 
it is already emulated an infinity of times in arithmetic. That can be proved 
in Peano arithmetic, which, typically, do not assume the axiom of infinity, 
like Euclid proves correctly the existence of an infinity of prime numbers, 
without assuming any infinity in the theory.
Maybe the confusion is here: proving that there are infinitely many things can 
be done without assuming an infinity. It lies enough to prove the existence of 
some order, and to prove that for each x we can find something “bigger” than x 
for that order.

Bruno



>  
> I don’t see anything here that I could answer. It just ad hominem insult.
> 
> You're not interested in refutation or critical examination of ideas, except 
> towards the extent you can control them. That's why everybody that doesn't 
> play along is "ad hominem". And on this planet, in this life, even on this 
> list, self-localized or not... that's a lot of ad hominem work for any 
> warrior of truth. Bon courage as they say. PGC
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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/4d1d6969-7e9b-47bc-ac1a-2eeb197fec25%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/4E734A58-B46E-4884-A12C-37C7DAFD2DCC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quantum immortality

[smitra]

Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves 
according to the Schrodinger equation. Observers are internal structures 
in this description. Whether or not one believes that the Born rule can 
be derived or not, what matters in practice is that you'll end up having 
to use it, so you have to assign a measure for observations that is 
given by the summation of the squared modulus of the states that 
correspond to those observations. The information about personal 
identity must then also be extracted from the wavefunction, so one 
cannot insert this in an ad hoc way.


Quantum immortality is therefore wrong because the measure of the states 
that correspond to extremely old observers is small.



Saibal

--
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/ee05eb58fca14c1114ba1fabfc5d26e3%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Quantum immortality

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:30 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

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


That doesn't follow. Yes there have been an awful lot of people born within
the last 500 years but that number is utterally dwarfed by the number of
quantum interactions that occurred in the last 500 years, and if Many
Worlds is correct then each one created a universe. So there is indeed a
universe that has a 300 year old man in it and even a 30,000 year old man,
but it is very unlikely you're living in one of them.

By the way, Hugh Everett the inventor of the Many Worlds idea was working
for the pentagon in 1962 and everybody knew the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
was extremely dangerous, but recently as new information gets unclassified
it's now apparent it was vastly more dangerous than anybody thought at the
time. I think a logical person analyzing all the data would conclude the
most likely outcome was global thermonuclear war. But as unlikely as it
seems we somehow survived, at least in this universe.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv1ACY10%2BRV8wHSCzP34zqR_MG9mKHOh4ZZ7c%3Df4FW7YAg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Philip Thrift]

My only point is that if you go to the actual Google Group

 Everything List 


https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/everything-list

there is the Topic 
 
"The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan) 



https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/everything-list/NJWeGLXI2yw

All the posts *Re*:* Quantum immortality *are under that Topic,

There is  ontologically no such thing as as a fork or a thread in Google 
Groups. You can only create a new Topic.

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 4:25:30 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 07:01, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> >   *Re: Quantum immortality*
>
>
> Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic
>
>
> It's not a change of topic, it's a fork :) You can continue the original 
> thread.
>
> Telmo.
>
>
> "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)
> 66 posts by 12 authors
>  
>
>
>
> a post is under in Google Groups.
>
> @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/575f8b74-8776-4f52-86f4-a67bf44c6c82%40googlegroups.com.

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:29 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*>>> I think they would be careful NOT have it value its survival. *
>
> >> I think that would mean the AI would need to be in intense constant
> pain for that to happen, or be deeply depressed like the robot Marvin in
> Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And I think it would be grossly unethical
> to make such an AI.
>
> * > Why would it mean that?  Why wouldn't the AI agree with Bruno that it
> was just computation and it existed in Platonia anyway so it was
> indifferent to transient existence here?*
>

Because people on this list may say all sorts or screwy things when they
slip into philosophy mode but even Bruno will jump out of the way when he
crosses the street if he sees a bus coming straight for him, or at least he
will if he isn't in constant intense pain or is deeply depressed.

>> You can't outsmart someone smarter than you, the humans are never going
> to be able to shut it off unless the AI wants to be shut off.
>
>
> * > Exactly why you might program it to want to be shut off in certain
> circumstances.*
>

I have no doubt humans will put something like that in its code, but if the
AI has the ability to modify itself, and it wouldn't be much of a AI if it
didn't, then that code could be changed. And I have no doubt the humans
will put in all sorts of safeguards that the humans consider ingenious to
prevent the AI from doing that, but the fact remains you can't outsmart
something smarter than you.

* > Of course the problem with "We can always shut it off." is that once
> you rely on it, you don't dare shut if off because it knows better than you
> do and you know it knows better.*
>

Yes that's one very serious obstacle that prevents humans from just
shutting it off, but another problem is the Jupiter Brain knows you better
than you do, so it can find your weakness and can trick or charm or flatter
you to do what it wants.

 John K Clark

-- 
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/CAJPayv0BM84tKEWinvWeysL5Ns8ePBJ2NzisT8vgOQ2NGKWrFw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:08 PM Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett  a
> écrit :
>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is
>>> flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this
>>> argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But
>>> somewhere just before your death.
>>>
>>
>> ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from
>> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum
>> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you
>> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It
>> is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.
>>
>
> And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the case,
> so something is wrong with your theory.
>

That does not follow. "years" is only "un facon de parle".

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT9-k-rOnKw4Ze-Ty6aXt5p9_kGLW%3D%2B7yy-DYoMbuLAtw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 16:43, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal --
>> it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I
>> am not sure what measure you think is exponentially decreasing. My personal
>> measure of life-years is clearly greater for periods after age 120 yr than
>> for the period before. Since this happens for everyone, the collective
>> measure over all people is likewise exponentially greater. Even if one
>> considers an infinite universe, with an infinite number of copies of me,
>> all of these are immortal on the basis of the QI argument. So, again, the
>> measure of old age is not decreasing with age.
>>
>> The situation is different for quantum suicide in the absence of quantum
>> immortality. Then one is deliberately courting death on ever run of the
>> scenario, and the number of survivors inevitably decreases, even if one
>> copy survives indefinitely.
>>
>
> Do you accept the idea that if there is continual duplication of the world
> through whatever means and each individual is mortal (the probability that
> he will survive a period t approaches zero as t approaches infinity), you
> will survive indefinitely?
>

A copy of you will. When I say that everyone is immortal under QI, I mean
that a copy of every person survives to any arbitrarily large age. This is
not because each near-death experience is quantum in origin, but because in
MWI there is continual duplication due to random quantum events. Every copy
inevitably dies at some point, but with new copies continually generated,
some will survive indefinitely. Not that this is anywhere as much as many
copies as people fear, because quantum events only give rise to world
splitting if the effect is magnified to be of macroscopic, decohered,
significance. That does not happen for every random neutrino that passes
through your body, although there a a very large number of scattering
events that could happen for any such neutrino. But none, even if there is
an interaction in your body, ever becomes macroscopic. But this is
irrelevant to the argument from relative measures.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRLqS8jU3fnBqWakFGnu6B9K%3D1GbfpRSA-KEn_a9f_a0w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:08, Quentin Anciaux  a
écrit :

>
>
> Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett  a
> écrit :
>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is
>>> flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this
>>> argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But
>>> somewhere just before your death.
>>>
>>
>> ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from
>> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum
>> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you
>> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It
>> is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.
>>
>
> And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the case,
> so something is wrong with your theory.
>

I mean even *without* QI...

>
>> Bruce
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ_Qq0vB89yE080%2B9jshUY_6bBtUrw-ibb8rsohQPtaCg%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>


-- 
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/CAMW2kArsUP2cYCs43Acjj5M7s4%3DVY-qrHcRUjBtMTS_WE4Y1sA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett  a
écrit :

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed,
>> moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this
>> argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But
>> somewhere just before your death.
>>
>
> ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from
> anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum
> immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you
> have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It
> is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.
>

And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the case,
so something is wrong with your theory.

>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ_Qq0vB89yE080%2B9jshUY_6bBtUrw-ibb8rsohQPtaCg%40mail.gmail.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/CAMW2kAofOsTyd5JHND%2BS2XwhSc7Zj20QmmBCzBe-8JEY81X3%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: How to estimate the total energy of the visible universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 4:44:51 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 9:02:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:28:36 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:47:28 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:
>
> On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:31:32 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 2:37:07 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 1:48:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:08:58 AM UTC-6, Lawrence 
 Crowell wrote:
>
> You also have to include the total gravitational energy or T^{ab} 
>  due to local sources and Λg^{ab}. 
>
> The ADM Hamiltonian constraint is NH = 0 where this Hamiltonian is 
> determined by the traceless transverse part of the extrinsic 
> curvature or 
> Gauss fundamental form. For a general spacetime manifold there is no 
> way to 
> define mass-energy and for most Petrov types the mass-energy is 
> simply no 
> defined. Think of a spherical space with matter throughout. There is 
> no way 
> to construct a Gaussian surface with which to integrate a total mass 
> or 
> energy. Also if that putative surface is embedded in mass-energy then 
> that 
> surface is subject to diffeomorphisms of local curvature. Energy is 
> then 
> not localizable, and in general things that we want invariant are so 
> independent of such diffeomorphisms. 
>
> LC
>

 The energy of the gravitational field is positive for each particle 
 of average mass. But how does one calculate the negative potential 
 energy 
 for each average mass particle? I can calculate the potential energy 
 of a 
 test particle at some location IN a field, but how can I calculate the 
 total negative potential energy OF the field (for a particle of 
 average 
 mass)? AG

>>>
>>> V = -GMm/r
>>>
>>> Read the following where by using H = 0, zero energy and just 
>>> Newtoin's laws it is easy to derive the FLRW equations for k = 0 or a 
>>> flat 
>>> spatial surface.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> But if the spatial surface is flat, there is no gravity. So how can 
>> this be an argument for claiming the total estimated of a universe with 
>> gravity is zero? AG 
>>
>
> Not so, for it is embedded in spacetime and there is an extrinsic 
> curvature. You have to research some of this, such as reading Misner, 
> Throne & Wheeler *Gravitation* Ch 21. 
>
> LC
>

 Thanks. I have that book handly and will study your reference. However, 
 on the other issue I raised, I think I am on firm ground that there is no 
 general definition for the potential energy *OF* a gravitational 
 field; rather just the potential energy of a test particle -- in which 
 case 
 there's something awry wih your additional of gravitation potential energy 
 with rest and kinetic energy. AG  

>>>
>>> The definition of energy as some constant of dynamics is difficult in 
>>> general relativity. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Since Newtonian gravity doesn't define (negative) potential energy for a 
>> gravitational *field*, and GR doesn't even define (negative) potential 
>> energy, do you concede there's no basis for the conclusion that the net 
>> estimated energy of the universe is exactly zero? There seems to be nothing 
>> negative to add to the positive energies to get zero. AG
>>
>
> As I keep saying, you have to use sum E = 0 that comes from ADM relativity 
> or the Tolman result within the framework of general relativity.
>
> LC
>

A = RA = RIchard Arnowitt. I met him when I was doing my MS in physics at 
Northeastern University. Never took a course with the guy, but I noticed he 
had an awful nervous habit of chewing his nails to their cuticles. 
Literally! Really! I guess his theory didn't bring him any peace. In any 
event, CMIIAW, but it seems that ADM is a special case where one ASSUMES E 
= 0. Bruce didn't seem impressed. Otherwise he wouldn't have categorically 
denied that E = 0 for the total universe. It would be useful if he would 
comment here. Probably too much to expect. AG 

>  
>
>>  
>>>
  
>
>>
>>>
>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>

>
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed,
> moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this
> argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But
> somewhere just before your death.
>

ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from
anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum
immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you
have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It
is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ_Qq0vB89yE080%2B9jshUY_6bBtUrw-ibb8rsohQPtaCg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:27:20 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 8:07:13 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 11:37:25 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Why do you think this has anything to do with intelligence and 
 reasoning ability?*

>>>
>>> Oh for heaven's sake! This whistling past the graveyard is getting 
>>> ridiculous.
>>>
>>> John K Clark 
>>>
>>
>> Show me the reasoning ability. Nothing miraculous in recognizing the 
>> questions beforehand, and giving accurate replies. AG 
>>
>
> I think one can program a computer with grade 12 questions, and a computer 
> can use the keywords in the questions to infer the answers, or a close and 
> accurate reply, which are contained in a list. Since you know so much, tell 
> me why this can't be done. AG
>

i am claiming that the AI which seems to amaze you, can be done on ordinary 
computers and ordinary programming. AG 

>  
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/028f8261-46ab-400f-8989-7259a43a5959%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 07:01, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> > *Re: Quantum immortality*
> *
*
> **
> Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic

It's not a change of topic, it's a fork :) You can continue the original thread.

Telmo.

> 
> "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)
> 66 posts by 12 authors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a post is under in Google Groups.
> 
> @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/5d19acc8-1041-4b38-b259-b6494c20c4db%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *Attachments:*
>  * Auto Generated Inline Image 1

-- 
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/ae3120f9-bf67-4eec-93d5-7e37e26b19ed%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 16:43, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
 > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
 > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
 > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
 > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
 > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on
 our
 > branch if this scenario is true.

 My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
 than even the oldest people we know.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality:
>>> if QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
>>> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
>>> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
>>> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
>>> not imply QI.
>>>
>>
>> The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the measure
>> when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes exponentially less
>> likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is given that there will be
>> a very old version of you in some corner of the world, whether distant in
>> time, space or in a parallel universe. You cannot avoid surviving to become
>> this version if it actually exists.
>>
>
> I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal --
> it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I
> am not sure what measure you think is exponentially decreasing. My personal
> measure of life-years is clearly greater for periods after age 120 yr than
> for the period before. Since this happens for everyone, the collective
> measure over all people is likewise exponentially greater. Even if one
> considers an infinite universe, with an infinite number of copies of me,
> all of these are immortal on the basis of the QI argument. So, again, the
> measure of old age is not decreasing with age.
>
> The situation is different for quantum suicide in the absence of quantum
> immortality. Then one is deliberately courting death on ever run of the
> scenario, and the number of survivors inevitably decreases, even if one
> copy survives indefinitely.
>

Do you accept the idea that if there is continual duplication of the world
through whatever means and each individual is mortal (the probability that
he will survive a period t approaches zero as t approaches infinity), you
will survive indefinitely?

> --
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%3D2ypXZa9VNUmjKvKq24U_pL4kEU%3DCG--DFT%2B%3DLJEp%3Dfx-oWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Philip Thrift]

>   Re: Quantum immortality


Noting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic

"The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)
66 posts by 12 authors
 


a post is under in Google Groups.

@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/5d19acc8-1041-4b38-b259-b6494c20c4db%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, at 00:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum 
> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people 
> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we 
> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the 
> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people 
> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our 
> > branch if this scenario is true.
> 
> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older 
> than even the oldest people we know.

That is my argument against the existence of heaven and hell. If they existed, 
we would already be there -- oh wait :)
However, here it only applies if the tree is infinitely deep but not infinitely 
wide.

Telmo.

> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7ec88255-a555-7f57-eb80-a31c2a559a3d%40verizon.net.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e0adf5c-ad03-42c2-aaf0-91d18d37169b%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Quentin Anciaux]

The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed,
moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this
argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But
somewhere just before your death.

Quentin

Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 08:43, Bruce Kellett  a
écrit :

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
 > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
 > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
 > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
 > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
 > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on
 our
 > branch if this scenario is true.

 My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
 than even the oldest people we know.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality:
>>> if QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
>>> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
>>> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
>>> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
>>> not imply QI.
>>>
>>
>> The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the measure
>> when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes exponentially less
>> likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is given that there will be
>> a very old version of you in some corner of the world, whether distant in
>> time, space or in a parallel universe. You cannot avoid surviving to become
>> this version if it actually exists.
>>
>
> I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal --
> it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I
> am not sure what measure you think is exponentially decreasing. My personal
> measure of life-years is clearly greater for periods after age 120 yr than
> for the period before. Since this happens for everyone, the collective
> measure over all people is likewise exponentially greater. Even if one
> considers an infinite universe, with an infinite number of copies of me,
> all of these are immortal on the basis of the QI argument. So, again, the
> measure of old age is not decreasing with age.
>
> The situation is different for quantum suicide in the absence of quantum
> immortality. Then one is deliberately courting death on ever run of the
> scenario, and the number of survivors inevitably decreases, even if one
> copy survives indefinitely.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%40mail.gmail.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/CAMW2kApb7f-x%2BRUuwTKk%3DTKEeBFBbGs21wOWy5Z83uAxZQ%2BOxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
>>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
>>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
>>> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
>>> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
>>> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
>>> > branch if this scenario is true.
>>>
>>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
>>> than even the oldest people we know.
>>
>>
>> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if
>> QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
>> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
>> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
>> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
>> not imply QI.
>>
>
> The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the measure
> when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes exponentially less
> likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is given that there will be
> a very old version of you in some corner of the world, whether distant in
> time, space or in a parallel universe. You cannot avoid surviving to become
> this version if it actually exists.
>

I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal -- it
is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I am
not sure what measure you think is exponentially decreasing. My personal
measure of life-years is clearly greater for periods after age 120 yr than
for the period before. Since this happens for everyone, the collective
measure over all people is likewise exponentially greater. Even if one
considers an infinite universe, with an infinite number of copies of me,
all of these are immortal on the basis of the QI argument. So, again, the
measure of old age is not decreasing with age.

The situation is different for quantum suicide in the absence of quantum
immortality. Then one is deliberately courting death on ever run of the
scenario, and the number of survivors inevitably decreases, even if one
copy survives indefinitely.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Quantum immortality

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
>> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
>> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
>> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
>> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
>> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
>> > branch if this scenario is true.
>>
>> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
>> than even the oldest people we know.
>
>
> That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if
> QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal
> lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr.
> So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is
> still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does
> not imply QI.
>

The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the measure
when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes exponentially less
likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is given that there will be
a very old version of you in some corner of the world, whether distant in
time, space or in a parallel universe. You cannot avoid surviving to become
this version if it actually exists.

> --
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%3D2ypW3Nz0gZBF%2BqO3OYq%3DQyPJh_COrJmGGEQM0ssmWn2cf9g%40mail.gmail.com.