Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11 Dec 2013, at 21:17, meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2013 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. This will include only apparent distant associations. Splitting or differentiation occurs at the speed of the interaction, which is light speed, or slower. The same occurs in the UD. But it is distant associations that make violation of Bell's inequality a non-local phenomenon. In one world. A good exercise is to study the paper by Bennett Al. on quantum teleportation, *in* the Everett (MWI) frame. You can convince yourself that everything is local, including the transfer of information. Then you can see that the residual classical bits that Alice needs to send to Bob, to complete the teleportation, only provides to Bob the information of iwhich branch of the multiverse he is situated in. Everything is completely local, but appears to be not so, locally (in each branch). One may say decoherence propagates via interactions within the forward light cone, but the source can be a set of spacelike events (e.g. corresponding to different measurement choices at opposite ends of an EPR experiment). This will not change the global locality. Whether the same occurs in the UD is just a hope, No, it is an easy justifiable proposition. What is a hope, is that the QM gives the right global measure on the FPI. And that hope is partially fulfilled by the self-reference logic. unless you've been able to derive spacetime from the UD process. Yes, that is the problem. The UD might be too rich, leading to non local space time, too much white rabbits, too much non computable phenomena in the neighborhood. A brain would no more be able to filtrate consciousness, and reality would be an incoherent dream. We should abandon comp at that stage. But taking into account the computer science self-referential constraints makes such refutation much harder, and there are promising result that such constraints is enough to get the right physics. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11 Dec 2013, at 18:58, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. What? Everett = SWE. The wave evolves deterministically. Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation (SWE) is deterministic but that doesn't matter because it describes nothing observable in the universe. In which theory? To figure out if a electron will be at point X you've got to square the value of the SWE at point X , and then all you get is a probability not a certainty. In Copenhangen. In Everett's theory, you get a self-duplication, similar to the comp one. To make matters worse the SWE uses imaginary numbers so 2 very different complex numbers provided by Schrodinger can produce identical probabilities after squaring. If 2 different things can produce identical results then things are not deterministic, ? It is the other way round. If two similar things can get different results, then things are not deterministic. You would not say that arithmetic is indeterminate because both 8-5 and 9-6 gives deterministically the same result. Bruno and if those results are probabilities not certainties then things are even less deterministic. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does suggest the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf , assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. This will include only apparent distant associations. Splitting or differentiation occurs at the speed of the interaction, which is light speed, or slower. The same occurs in the UD. Bruno Brent 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. I agree with Jason. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11 Dec 2013, at 02:23, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) But the many worlds don't disappear, unless you invoke a sort of quantum conspiracy, which might be true, but it begins to look like a super-selection of one branch among the many, and it has to use some special initial conditions. It works logically, if you add non-comp, as with comp, you get the many computations anyway, without quantum nor comp conspiracies or super-determinism. Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. This table should be updated in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations Hmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment would relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is explicitly non-local? I don't know enough about TIQM to say, but the wikipedia article on it also mentions in several places that it is explicitly non-local: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation What are the zig-zags? By traveling back in time and then forward a particle can be at two spacelike separate events. Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron and electron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, with the positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matter interpretation, neither is FTL. Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens? http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080 Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hidden variables? I don't see how this shows anything contrary to predictions of QM / Everett. As I mentioned earlier, Bell's Theorem only disproves local hidden variables. It leaves two possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than one outcome. When they measure the same attribute, the result is correlated as I described before, leading to two worlds. When they measure the uncorrelated observables, each is split separately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed to the other, creating four superposed states. The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime. Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something else? No, just that a ray in Hilbert space, a state, corresponds to a solution of the SWE over configuration space (with boundary conditions) which in general is not localized in spacetime. Locality (as I've used the term) refers to the idea that things are only affected by their immediate environment. I think you are speaking of something else when you speak of being able to locate it somewhere in space-time. Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that they are unique? There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating external to that mind. I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided to choose, then the
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. What? Everett = SWE. The wave evolves deterministically. Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation (SWE) is deterministic but that doesn't matter because it describes nothing observable in the universe. To figure out if a electron will be at point X you've got to square the value of the SWE at point X , and then all you get is a probability not a certainty. To make matters worse the SWE uses imaginary numbers so 2 very different complex numbers provided by Schrodinger can produce identical probabilities after squaring. If 2 different things can produce identical results then things are not deterministic, and if those results are probabilities not certainties then things are even less deterministic. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. What? Everett = SWE. The wave evolves deterministically. Yes the Schrodinger Wave Equation (SWE) is deterministic but that doesn't matter because it describes nothing observable in the universe. To figure out if a electron will be at point X you've got to square the value of the SWE at point X , and then all you get is a probability not a certainty. You seem to have a blind spot for first person indeterminacy. Were you not the one to say everything is 100% certain in the case of the duplication experiment? Now you back-peddle to say there are indeed probabilities when observer states are duplicated in the Schrodinger equation?! Jason To make matters worse the SWE uses imaginary numbers so 2 very different complex numbers provided by Schrodinger can produce identical probabilities after squaring. If 2 different things can produce identical results then things are not deterministic, and if those results are probabilities not certainties then things are even less deterministic. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/11/2013 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. This will include only apparent distant associations. Splitting or differentiation occurs at the speed of the interaction, which is light speed, or slower. The same occurs in the UD. But it is distant associations that make violation of Bell's inequality a non-local phenomenon. One may say decoherence propagates via interactions within the forward light cone, but the source can be a set of spacelike events (e.g. corresponding to different measurement choices at opposite ends of an EPR experiment). Whether the same occurs in the UD is just a hope, unless you've been able to derive spacetime from the UD process. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/11/2013 2:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. This table should be updated in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations Hmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment would relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is explicitly non-local? I don't know enough about TIQM to say, but the wikipedia article on it also mentions in several places that it is explicitly non-local: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation What are the zig-zags? By traveling back in time and then forward a particle can be at two spacelike separate events. Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron and electron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, with the positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matter interpretation, neither is FTL. Right. So it's local in the sense of slower than light, although it effectively implements a non-local hidden variable. Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens? http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080 Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hidden variables? I don't see how this shows anything contrary to predictions of QM / Everett. As I mentioned earlier, Bell's Theorem only disproves local hidden variables. It leaves two possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than one outcome. When they measure the same attribute, the result is correlated as I described before, leading to two worlds. When they measure the uncorrelated observables, each is split separately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed to the other, creating four superposed states. But the measurements with more than one outcome turn out to be more correlated than allowed by classical mechanics. So the four outcomes are not equally probable, in spite of the symmetry of the experiment. That's why it implies non-locality in any hidden variable model. I don't see that multiple worlds makes the non-locality go away, it just seems to rephrase it in terms of some worlds interfering more than others. The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime. Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something else? No, just that a ray in Hilbert space, a state, corresponds to a solution of the SWE over configuration space (with boundary conditions) which in general is not localized in spacetime. Locality (as I've used the term) refers to the idea that things are only affected by their immediate environment. I
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/11/2013 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2013, at 02:23, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) But the many worlds don't disappear, unless you invoke a sort of quantum conspiracy, which might be true, The conspiracy would be some future boundary condition. Note that if the universe is finite then there are only finitely many possible future states, which implies that there is a smallest non-zero probability. This would imply that the action of decoherence will make the off diagonal terms of an einselected density matrix exactly zero - which is like a real collapse or epistemically a simple probability prediction. Of course it appears that the universe, even the observable universe, is not finite - although it is finite at any epoch. Brent but it begins to look like a super-selection of one branch among the many, and it has to use some special initial conditions. It works logically, if you add non-comp, as with comp, you get the many computations anyway, without quantum nor comp conspiracies or super-determinism. Bruno -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 11 December 2013 22:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Dec 2013, at 02:23, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) But the many worlds don't disappear, unless you invoke a sort of quantum conspiracy, which might be true, but it begins to look like a super-selection of one branch among the many, and it has to use some special initial conditions. It works logically, if you add non-comp, as with comp, you get the many computations anyway, without quantum nor comp conspiracies or super-determinism. I'm not sure if this is intended to do away with the MWI, but it *is* the simplest explanation for EPR. I would imagine it complements the MWI rather than being a rival theory. As someone pointed out further down this topic, it's sort-of analogous to Feynman's explanation of antimatter as matter travelling backwards in time. Since matter doesn't actually travel through time in any direction this is a slightly fanciful notion, but it's useful for envisioning that at the subatomic level processes can occur equally in either time direction. I already explained somewhere (perhaps on FOAR) that most of the processes we think of as time-directed are due to boundary conditions, mainly the fact that the universe is expanding (for example the appearance of nucleons from quark soup, the appearance of atoms from plasma, and so on). The only subatomic process that is known to violate this principle is kaon decay; whether that is enough to be responsible for the entropy gradient is an open question, but seems unlikely compared to the overwhelming (one might say elephantine-in-the-room) existence of cosmological expansion. Since one should favour the simplest expanation that handles all the facts, time symmetry should be considered as a possible explanation for EPR. (But as entropic creatures we have a huge built-in bias against seeing that this is even possible.) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2013 2:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. This table should be updated in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations Hmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment would relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is explicitly non-local? I don't know enough about TIQM to say, but the wikipedia article on it also mentions in several places that it is explicitly non-local: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation What are the zig-zags? By traveling back in time and then forward a particle can be at two spacelike separate events. Is it the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter? In that the positron and electron created in the decay of a particle can be envisioned as the same particle, with the positron travelling backwards in time. In the case of that anti-matter interpretation, neither is FTL. Right. So it's local in the sense of slower than light, although it effectively implements a non-local hidden variable. That is a rather neat trick. I like it. However, I still find MWI more plausible for the other reasons I provided. Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens? http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080 Isn't that the ordinary EPR paradox with Bell's extension to disprove local hidden variables? I don't see how this shows anything contrary to predictions of QM / Everett. As I mentioned earlier, Bell's Theorem only disproves local hidden variables. It leaves two possible alternatives: FTL/non-local influences and measurements with more than one outcome. When they measure the same attribute, the result is correlated as I described before, leading to two worlds. When they measure the uncorrelated observables, each is split separately when they make the measurement, and then the split spreads at light speed to the other, creating four superposed states. But the measurements with more than one outcome turn out to be more correlated than allowed by classical mechanics. Bell's inequality doesn't apply when more than one outcome is possible. You can treat them as non-hidden, (since they are in the equation) correlated, multi-valued variables. Bell's inequality cannot be addressed with local (non-interacting) single-outcome variables, because once you measure one, to agree with QM it must instantly affect the other to explain the outcome of the remote measurement. If you assume there cannot be this action at a distance, and that there are hidden deterministic state tables that define the outcome of the measurement, this is what Bell's inequality shows cannot be made to agree with QM. In QM, when you send the two entangled photons to two remote polarization filters, which are offset by 30 degrees, you will find that they agree 75% of the time. Which is exactly the result you get whenever you send light of a known polarization through a filter offset at 30 degrees from that base: 75% of the light makes it through. That the light that makes it through is cos(d)^2 where d is the difference in angle, is itself not a violation of Bell's
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does suggest the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo- Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf , assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. I agree with Jason. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. Brent 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. I agree with Jason. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does *suggest* the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. Not quite, the superposition spreads, causally and locally. First when the positron and electron are sent to remote locations, and then it spreads from the positron and electron when they are themselves measured, locally causing multiplications of states to everything that interacts with everything that interacted with the particle. There is no instantaneous creation of two states for the scientists at Proxima Centarui when the electron is measured on Earth, they bifurcate into two states only when they measure their positron, or alternately, if they waited 4 years for the Earth scientist's radio transmission to reach them, then they would enter superposed states from the Earth scientists report. (This is an example of the superposition spreading at light or sub-light speeds throughout the environment.) Jason 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. I agree with Jason. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/10 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does *suggest* the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. No decoherence is spread through the environment at light speed. Quentin Brent 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. I agree with Jason. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/10/2013 1:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. No decoherence is spread through the environment at light speed. But if the EPR particles are measured at spacelike intervals there are two light cones of decoherence spreading through the environment - BUT they are coherent so that only two constructively interfere. There result only two worlds, instead of four. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 1:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. What is non local here? A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts. No decoherence is spread through the environment at light speed. But if the EPR particles are measured at spacelike intervals there are two light cones of decoherence spreading through the environment - BUT they are coherent so that only two constructively interfere. There result only two worlds, instead of four. The positron and electron already interacted. The state of the system isn't (e↑ + e↓) + (p↓ × p↑) it is (e↑ × p↓) + (e↓ × p↑). There is a partitions of non-interacting, non-correlated states, for which there are two. Interacting with either one of the electron or the positron puts you into one a superposition of those two states. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that they are unique? There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating external to that mind. I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on interval of 2^n or less. It is provable that no deterministic process limited to a fixed quantity of memory (and therefore a fixed number of states) can go through more than 2^n states without repeating, so either the randomness in QM will repeat, or the observer will get to states where their choices cannot be made to continue to agree with quantum measurements. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime. Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that they are unique? There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating external to that mind. I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on interval of 2^n or less. There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if hyper-determinism is true, it's true of the universe as a whole. Brent It is provable that no deterministic process limited to a fixed quantity of memory (and therefore a fixed number of states) can go through more than 2^n states without repeating, so either the randomness in QM will repeat, or the observer will get to states where their choices cannot be made to continue to agree with quantum measurements. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. This table should be updated in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations What are the zig-zags? Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens? The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime. Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something else? Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that they are unique? There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating external to that mind. I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on interval of 2^n or less. There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if hyper-determinism is true, it's true of the universe as a whole. What if we have two remote locations measuring entangled particles, and whether they measure the x-spin or y-spin for the i-th particle depends on the i-th binary digit of Pi at one locations, and the i-th binary digit of Euler's constant at the other location? How can hyper-determinism force the digits of Pi or e? Jason Brent It is provable that no deterministic process limited to a fixed quantity of memory (and therefore a fixed number of states) can go through more than 2^n states without repeating, so either the randomness in QM will repeat, or the observer will get to states where their choices cannot be made to continue to agree with quantum measurements. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/10/2013 10:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of physics operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the hardest one for people to grasp, however.) Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's transactional interpretation. Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM. I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's. This table should be updated in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations Hmm. I think the transactional waves are not FTL but in an EPR experiment would relay on backward-in-time signaling. Not sure why it says TIQ is explicitly non-local? What are the zig-zags? By traveling back in time and then forward a particle can be at two spacelike separate events. Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM. But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. Can you explain the experimental setup where this happens? http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080 The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime. Are you referring to momentum vs. position basis ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/pr/which_basis_is_more_fundamental/ ) or something else? No, just that a ray in Hilbert space, a state, corresponds to a solution of the SWE over configuration space (with boundary conditions) which in general is not localized in spacetime. Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that they are unique? There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the can make independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint. Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating external to that mind. I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on interval of 2^n or less. There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if hyper-determinism is true, it's true of the universe as a whole. What if we have two remote locations measuring entangled particles, and whether they measure the x-spin or y-spin for the i-th particle depends on the i-th binary digit of Pi at one locations, and the i-th binary digit of Euler's constant at the other location? How can hyper-determinism force the digits of Pi or e? ?? I think the i-th digit pi and the i-th digit of e are already determined. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does *suggest* the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 09 Dec 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does suggest the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, I am not sure we can establish anything about nature (nor even that it exists in some ontological) sense. But we can say that up to now, all our theories are deterministic, which is assuming less than to assume the existence of something non deterministic, which for me is close to a fairy tale idea (just looking more serious, but belonging to the same kind of insanity, to use Einstein's wording). Obviously, for people believing in both QM and a unique physical reality (a mono-universe), it looks like there is a 3p indeterminacy, but computationalist have an easy theory explaining this necessary indeterministic first person (even plural with QM) appearance. QM (without collapse) makes going away any 3p indeterminacy, and 3p non locality. Comp makes this into statistically predictible explained appearance. But then comp adds once important thing: the SWE (i.e. QM itself) *must* be deduced from a larger statistics on all computations. And all computations makes sense through the miracle of the Church- Turing-Post-Kleene thesis. Once you accept, like John C., that there are events without cause, I think you believe in magic. Bruno but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/9/2013 2:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, I am not sure we can establish anything about nature (nor even that it exists in some ontological) sense. But we can say that up to now, all our theories are deterministic, Actually only a handful of theories: mechanics and electrodynamics were deterministic. There was great resistance to them at first because the tied the hands of God. Then theologians explained that God was the law giver so it was OK. Probability theory was developed later and there were many applications of it (Poisson predicted the incidence of injury due to horse kicks in Napoleon's army) - but because it was assumed that there were laws of nature laid down by God, the indeterminism was assumed to be due to a lack of information. But if you take QM to be indeterministic you find that quantum randomness gets amplified to classical lack of information pretty quickly. When QM was found to be probablistic there was again great resistance because God didn't throw dice. which is assuming less than to assume the existence of something non deterministic, which for me is close to a fairy tale idea (just looking more serious, but belonging to the same kind of insanity, to use Einstein's wording). Theories are human inventions. Humans liked determinstic theories because they give definite answers. Even in engineering problems it is always complicates things a lot when you have to use probabilistic analysis, e.g. in aircraft structural life calculations: Simple maxima and minima get replaced by probability distributions. Multiplications get replaced by convolution integrals. Simulations become Monte Carlos. Management wants to know exactly how much it will cost - not a range. It is more likely that determinism is a fairy tale we select from the world because it's a more pleasant story than reality. Brent Obviously, for people believing in both QM and a unique physical reality (a mono-universe), it looks like there is a 3p indeterminacy, but computationalist have an easy theory explaining this necessary indeterministic first person (even plural with QM) appearance. QM (without collapse) makes going away any 3p indeterminacy, and 3p non locality. Comp makes this into statistically predictible explained appearance. But then comp adds once important thing: the SWE (i.e. QM itself) *must* be deduced from a larger statistics on all computations. And all computations makes sense through the miracle of the Church-Turing-Post-Kleene thesis. Once you accept, like John C., that there are events without cause, I think you believe in magic. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does *suggest* the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. Brent 2. Measurements have more than one outcome In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or many-world's is true. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does *suggest* the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. There is nothing non-local about Everett's theory. You start with the electron and positron left over from the decay of a pi meson. They are each in a superposition of having a negative spin in the y axis and a positive spin on the y axis, but they are correlated in the following way: (e↑ × p↓) + (e↓ × p↑) Then one electron is sent to Earth and the other to the closest star, Proxima Centauri, where they are measured at about exact same time. After the scientists on Earth measure the electron, the state is as follows: (Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓) + (Earth↓ ×e↓ × p↑) Where Earth↑ represents earth scientists who measured the electron to have an up spin and Earth↓ represents earth scientists who measured the down spin for their electron. So far so good, nothing non-local has happened, only people on Earth are affected by the measurement of the electron (they have become part of the superposition). A fraction of a second later, the scientists at Proxima Centauri (4 light years away) measure their position, and the resulting superposition becomes: (Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓ × Proxima↓) + (Earth↓ ×e↓ × p↑ × Proxima↑) So now the scientists at Proxima Centauri have become part of the superposition, having measured both possible values. There is no need to enforce at speeds faster than light, any kind of agreement with the measurement by the remote groups of scientists, since both scientists measure both outcomes. Now when the scientists at Proxima Centauri measure their positron's spin, and send the result to Earth (to arrive 4 years later), the Earth scientists necessarily find that the radio signal indicates a result that corresponds to their own measurement. This is because the radio broadcast correlates with the measurement at Proxima Centauri, which is correlated with the positron, which is correlated with the electron, which is correlated with the measurement of the Earth scientists. Since they exist in distinct states of the superposition, it is impossible for the Earth↑ scientists to hear from or otherwise interact with the
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/9/2013 5:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. There is nothing non-local about Everett's theory. You start with the electron and positron left over from the decay of a pi meson. They are each in a superposition of having a negative spin in the y axis and a positive spin on the y axis, but they are correlated in the following way: (e↑ × p↓) + (e↓ × p↑) Then one electron is sent to Earth and the other to the closest star, Proxima Centauri, where they are measured at about exact same time. After the scientists on Earth measure the electron, the state is as follows: (Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓) + (Earth↓ ×e↓ × p↑) Where Earth↑ represents earth scientists who measured the electron to have an up spin and Earth↓ represents earth scientists who measured the down spin for their electron. So far so good, nothing non-local has happened, only people on Earth are affected by the measurement of the electron (they have become part of the superposition). A fraction of a second later, the scientists at Proxima Centauri (4 light years away) measure their position, and the resulting superposition becomes: (Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓ × Proxima↓) + (Earth↓ ×e↓ × p↑ × Proxima↑) So now the scientists at Proxima Centauri have become part of the superposition, having measured both possible values. There is no need to enforce at speeds faster than light, any kind of agreement with the measurement by the remote groups of scientists, since both scientists measure both outcomes. Now when the scientists at
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 5:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here]. I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM follows the principle of determinism (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does *suggest* the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...) I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on. But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus. It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality. Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox: 1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is. There is nothing non-local about Everett's theory. You start with the electron and positron left over from the decay of a pi meson. They are each in a superposition of having a negative spin in the y axis and a positive spin on the y axis, but they are correlated in the following way: (e↑ × p↓) + (e↓ × p↑) Then one electron is sent to Earth and the other to the closest star, Proxima Centauri, where they are measured at about exact same time. After the scientists on Earth measure the electron, the state is as follows: (Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓) + (Earth↓ ×e↓ × p↑) Where Earth↑ represents earth scientists who measured the electron to have an up spin and Earth↓ represents earth scientists who measured the down spin for their electron. So far so good, nothing non-local has happened, only people on Earth are affected by the measurement of the electron (they have become part of the superposition). A fraction of a second later, the scientists at Proxima Centauri (4 light years away) measure their position, and the resulting superposition becomes: (Earth↑ × e↑ × p↓ × Proxima↓) + (Earth↓ ×e↓ × p↑ × Proxima↑) So now the scientists at Proxima Centauri have become part of the superposition, having measured both possible values. There is no need to enforce at speeds faster than light, any kind of agreement with the measurement by the remote groups of scientists, since both scientists measure both outcomes. Now when the scientists at Proxima Centauri measure their positron's spin, and send the result to Earth (to arrive 4 years later), the Earth scientists necessarily find that the radio signal indicates a result that corresponds to their own measurement. This is because the radio broadcast correlates with the measurement at Proxima Centauri, which is correlated with the positron, which is correlated with the electron, which is correlated with the measurement of the Earth
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 8 December 2013 20:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it, so it is more rightfully called a theory. It is also the only theory under which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality, causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those principles, Everett is your only option. Determinism is far from well established. Surely Everett's interpretation makes quantum mechanics deterministic. So rather than being compatible with it, it *makes* it well established, well, as far as anything does... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote: On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. The Young two slits. Only in some interpretations. In all interpretations of QM. You have to change drastically the QM theory to avoid the MW- consequences. Like Bohm add a potential, or Copenhague a wave reduction, not obeying to QM (SWE). The MW follows from linearity of the tensor products, linearity of the SWE solution evolutions, and a definition of world by closure through interactions. Of course here QM confirms the MW related to comp, which is easier to justify. the many computations are just there, in arithmetic. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 08 Dec 2013, at 10:46, LizR wrote: On 8 December 2013 20:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it, so it is more rightfully called a theory. It is also the only theory under which QM is compatible with the well- established principles of locality, causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those principles, Everett is your only option. Determinism is far from well established. Surely Everett's interpretation makes quantum mechanics deterministic. So rather than being compatible with it, it makes it well established, well, as far as anything does... Yes. Both Comp and QM are strictly deterministic in the 3p outer, 0th person, view. Apparently Einstein defined insanity by the belief in a (3p, I add) indeterminacy on immediate result outcomes. I tend to agree with this. 3p abrupt indeterminacy (as opposed to the prediction of the long run time behavior of a program) does not make much sense to me. Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:46 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Surely Everett's interpretation makes quantum mechanics deterministic. Yes but if the world really isn't deterministic then turning quantum mechanics into something that was deterministic would be a point against Everett; and he provides no evidence it is deterministic or even proposes a way that this proposition could be tested even in theory. I like Everett's idea for reasons that have nothing to do with determinism, I like it because Everett says the moon exists even when I'm not looking at it. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. The Young two slits. Only in some interpretations. Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it, so it is more rightfully called a theory. It is also the only theory under which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality, causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those principles, Everett is your only option. Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. What about causality, and locality? Do you reject those too? Don't forget about special relativity. Even that seems to be in conflict with single universe interpretations since Bell. (Many apologists now say no useful information rather than nothing can travel faster than light, just to defend the Bohr-Heisenberg idea of collapse) How many sacred cows in physics must be sacrificed to save this poorly defined and ill-conceived Copenhagen Interpretation? The only reason single-universe ideas haven't already been refuted is that they are ambiguously defined. That is, they make no explicit predictions as to when or how collapse happens, so whenever interference is demonstrated with larger and larger systems, defenders of collapse just adjusting the line. That and the fact that they are unobservable. As Deutsch says, so are Pterodactyls and quarks, but our evidence for the multiverse is at least as strong as it is for quarks. All those phenomena cited to show there is a multiverse, like Young's slits, require that the interference happen in this universe - so those other universes are not so other. It is better to think of particles as having multi-valued properties, (including multiple positions), and since we are made of particles, we too can be in superpositions. And later, from this, you can see how systems can evolve independent non-interfering paths, which for all intents and purposes will behave as causally isolated realms. (Which is why they can then be considered separate universes). I learned recently that later in his life Schrodinger independently conceived of parallel universes, but didn't publish anything on it. According to Deutsch: About 11 minutes in to this video: http://vimeo.com/5490979 “Schrödinger alsohad the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin, in which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't that a strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared being considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won the Nobel Prize for, might be true.” 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 08 Dec 2013, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. What? Everett = SWE. The wave evolves deterministically. It was only when confronted to the explosion of realities that QM entails that physicists admitted a (unintelligible) wave reduction which introduced indeterminism in the picture, and Einstein never bought it at the start. I bought it, but that was an error of youth, not helped by the textbook which dare to add the collapse as an axiom. Everett is just a coming back to the old but venerable tenant of physics: 3p determinacy. Everett indeterminacy is typically 1p indeterminacies. It is not that QM assumes determinacy, it is that Everett shows we don't need to assume indeterminacy (which for a logician is a much more stronger assumption, even insanity for Einstein). Somehow Everett shows that Einstein was constantly right on QM. His critics was on QM+collapse, if you look close. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Determinism is far from well established. It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in. I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse. Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: On 12/6/2013 12:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. The Young two slits. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:33, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. Isn't this required to prove comp, by looking at the results of running the UD for a long time? Not at all. The probabilities are 1p, and always relative to the state you are in. You never look at the running of the UD for a long time. You are always confronted with its entire infinite running (in arithmetic). ASSA can be used to justify some geographic matter. But the extraction of the physical laws (and more) is based entirely on the relative first person SSA. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:35, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 December 2013 21:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. I don't see this. Surely you are far more likely to have experienced the nausea and pain, and to have nevertheless survived somehow - by a very unlikely chance - than to have lucked out and not been gassed at all? This is the problem with QTI - it seems to me almost inevitable that one will only survive in a very unfortunate state, at least for a long time. Yes, if QTI, or Computational Immortality are true, then the only way to explain them, given we are not infinitely old, is that we are in a state of amnesia concerning our true history of experiences. In a sense, below our substitution level, we should be indeed old, because the FPI get maximal, on all computations going through your current state, and almost all computations are arbitrarily long. That's why it is still possible that comp implies an infinite age for the physical reality. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:35, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 December 2013 21:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. I don't see this. Surely you are far more likely to have experienced the nausea and pain, and to have nevertheless survived somehow - by a very unlikely chance - than to have lucked out and not been gassed at all? This is the problem with QTI - it seems to me almost inevitable that one will only survive in a very unfortunate state, at least for a long time. Yes, if QTI, or Computational Immortality are true, then the only way to explain them, given we are not infinitely old, is that we are in a state of amnesia concerning our true history of experiences. In a sense, below our substitution level, we should be indeed old, because the FPI get maximal, on all computations going through your current state, and almost all computations are arbitrarily long. That's why it is still possible that comp implies an infinite age for the physical reality. But conscious beings can hop from physical reality to physical reality, depending on where the continuations exists, can't they? Just as a computer emulation of a conscious being may not run forever, it can still temporarily instantiate them, and when that computer stops, it does not end the consciousness as it hops to another computer somewhere else which keeps on going. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. The Young two slits. Only in some interpretations. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 07 Dec 2013, at 18:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:35, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 December 2013 21:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. I don't see this. Surely you are far more likely to have experienced the nausea and pain, and to have nevertheless survived somehow - by a very unlikely chance - than to have lucked out and not been gassed at all? This is the problem with QTI - it seems to me almost inevitable that one will only survive in a very unfortunate state, at least for a long time. Yes, if QTI, or Computational Immortality are true, then the only way to explain them, given we are not infinitely old, is that we are in a state of amnesia concerning our true history of experiences. In a sense, below our substitution level, we should be indeed old, because the FPI get maximal, on all computations going through your current state, and almost all computations are arbitrarily long. That's why it is still possible that comp implies an infinite age for the physical reality. But conscious beings can hop from physical reality to physical reality, depending on where the continuations exists, can't they? Hopefully. Apparently, most of the time. Just as a computer emulation of a conscious being may not run forever, it can still temporarily instantiate them, and when that computer stops, it does not end the consciousness as it hops to another computer somewhere else which keeps on going. Well, he would feel to be selected if he could have an idea of the huge number of different computations on which it can indeed hop. But the hoping is blind and indeterminate, under the substitution level, as opposed to the bet on the local universal number (DNA, heavy bodies, you, the colleagues, etc.) above. (just taking comp seriously. Not that anything above is true) Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. The Young two slits. Only in some interpretations. Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it, so it is more rightfully called a theory. It is also the only theory under which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality, causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those principles, Everett is your only option. The only reason single-universe ideas haven't already been refuted is that they are ambiguously defined. That is, they make no explicit predictions as to when or how collapse happens, so whenever interference is demonstrated with larger and larger systems, defenders of collapse just adjusting the line. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. The Young two slits. Only in some interpretations. Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it, so it is more rightfully called a theory. It is also the only theory under which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality, causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those principles, Everett is your only option. Determinism is far from well established. The only reason single-universe ideas haven't already been refuted is that they are ambiguously defined. That is, they make no explicit predictions as to when or how collapse happens, so whenever interference is demonstrated with larger and larger systems, defenders of collapse just adjusting the line. That and the fact that they are unobservable. All those phenomena cited to show there is a multiverse, like Young's slits, require that the interference happen in this universe - so those other universes are not so other. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But what has happened is that science has taken away more and more of their domain, It was in the domain at the start. Science is only a lamp, not a truth. It is a way to look at any domain. And the way science looks at a domain is to make models and test them by observation and manipulation. We test theories. We cannot test models. But we interpret and give meaning to the theories, and thus believe in the model or some model. If the models are comprehensive, consilient, have predictive power, then they are tentatively accepted in sense of being assumed in support of other studies. That's why I think that when we are able to make robots that behave like humans we will have models of conscious thought that are much more fine grained than we do now. But conversely we will not longer think What is consciousness to be sensible question. I guess you do miss something in the UDA. If we are machine, we do have a testable theory of consciousness-and-matter. And it has the shape of a neoplatonist theory. That fact is not remarkable. If all correct machine discover that number theology, it is normal that the most less self-referentially wrong human get it when looking inward. It is just that very often humans get attached to some theory, and are followed by the don't ask attitude by those who coerce for some statu quo. And very often humans have gotten attached to the wrong question and have wasted centuries theorizing over answers. UDA shows that we have no choice in the matter. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:... Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. ?? They were in a different realm all along. But it was subjectively indistinguishable, as it is the execution of same program. When some of the programs stop, other incarnations of it continue. yes, it is the differentiation/bifurcation false debate. Same in comp and QM. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. Would you say there is a greater probability of ending up in a strange and different place on this day, compared to normal days when you don't face a 999,999 out of 1,000,000 chance of being killed? It depends on the killing ability of the gas used. Are you OK for this? I pay you 10,000$ for accepting to sleep one night in my sleep laboratory, I tell you in advance that you will live a quite intense nightmare, but I promise you that you will be 100% amnesic of it and you will unaffected by the experience, are you OK? $10,000 is a lot of money, it's hard to think of a nightmare so bad (even without the amnesia) that would not make it worth taking the money. If the nightmare is *very* painful ... In the equivalent example of torture + amnesia, under which I would be willing to pay $10,000 to avoid to avoid the torture (with or without amnesia), then I think the logical decision is still to reject the torture and $10,000 even if it comes with amnesia. OK. The slowing of the annihilation illustrates something weird. Before the experience the probability are one halve that you will feel either just passing a boring day with a cat in some chamber, or going through a slow unpleasant (ending?) event. Yet the probability that you survive, above one day, the experience seems to be still one. It is part of a finite path elimination process, from the 1p perspective. It is analogous to the backtracking. I am not sure it is correct as I cannot be sure the agonizing near death experience terminates, and for who? Nothing is simple here. Indeed. I accept *total* annihilation experience only in thought experience! In practice it might not exist. We don't know (and can't know) our substitution level, and it depends on what you are willing to abandon, or to what you identify with is. 1-annihilation experiences are near death experiences. Is it clear that they have endings in the arithmetical reality? Who knows? The same can be asked for some type of dreams, and altered states of consciousness. The way I have for a time looked at is, is there are X instances that explain your current experience. Some may be ordinary while others might be, say a dream. If in your experience, you encounter something you are unlikely to survive ordinarily, like a Mushroom cloud on the horizon, then you will likely next find yourself waking from a dream. (Since all the non-dreaming ordinary explanations are dead). Is there something wrong with this reasoning? Consistent, but not necessarily necessary. There are dreams and dreams. You might awaken in another realm, or in computers build by descendents, etc. And, who knows, you can awaken in some heaven and unconditional love state ... In my opinion, understanding a theorem in arithmetic already provides a glimpse on a deep and atemporal experience, connected to the first person in virtue of an argument. I will need to think more on this. Thanks. OK, bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 6 December 2013 21:45, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. I assume you mean experiment (although an experience would also be interesting :) In an uncountably infinite multiverse, the relative measure of me, humanity, Earth, the galaxy and probably the Hubble sphere is effectively zero. At least, I think it is. In a quantised multiverse which allows every instance of a finite number of 'worlds' to exist (a very large number, of course) then the absolute measure of, say, me is finite (though very small), and one might in principle be able to work out what it is. But in a quantised multiverse I'm not sure QTI would hold. Or *can* the multiverse be quantised in that sense? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 6 December 2013 21:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. I don't see this. Surely you are far more likely to have experienced the nausea and pain, and to have nevertheless survived somehow - by a very unlikely chance - than to have lucked out and not been gassed at all? This is the problem with QTI - it seems to me almost inevitable that one will only survive in a very unfortunate state, at least for a long time. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The way I have for a time looked at is, is there are X instances that explain your current experience. Some may be ordinary while others might be, say a dream. If in your experience, you encounter something you are unlikely to survive ordinarily, like a Mushroom cloud on the horizon, then you will likely next find yourself waking from a dream. (Since all the non-dreaming ordinary explanations are dead). Is there something wrong with this reasoning? It certainly worked for George Orr. (Generally, and then I woke up is the worst cop-out in literature, but somehow it works for Lewis Carroll and Ursula le Guin) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 06 Dec 2013, at 11:07, LizR wrote: On 6 December 2013 21:45, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. I assume you mean experiment (although an experience would also be interesting :) Gosh, someone told me that was the same thing. So you agree that experiences are 1p-experiment, and that experiment = 3p-experience? In an uncountably infinite multiverse, the relative measure of me, humanity, Earth, the galaxy and probably the Hubble sphere is effectively zero. This has no meaning to me. Only relative measure makes senses. At least, I think it is. In a quantised multiverse which allows every instance of a finite number of 'worlds' to exist (a very large number, of course) then the absolute measure of, say, me is finite (though very small), I really cannot make any sense of that. Anyway, if you are Turing emulable, you are plausibly distributed on a continuum of (infinite) computations. And you have no absolute measure. and one might in principle be able to work out what it is. But in a quantised multiverse I'm not sure QTI would hold. OK. In a quantized multiverse, assuming we know our substitution level, one could build an annihilator which guarantied you disappear in all your accessible worlds! But you know that things are reversible, all right. That does not make sense, although it is hard to judge this with comp, despite a shadow of symmetry in all directions might appear at his core physics. Or can the multiverse be quantised in that sense? We just did. Oops! Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 06 Dec 2013, at 11:10, LizR wrote: On 6 December 2013 21:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. I don't see this. Surely you are far more likely to have experienced the nausea and pain, and to have nevertheless survived somehow - by a very unlikely chance - than to have lucked out and not been gassed at all? In the traditional experience, the trigger of the gas capsule is in the state 1/sqrt(2)(will trigger + will not trigger), so you have 1/2 to not be poisoned and 1/2 to be poisoned. the one not poisoned remember nothing of the experience of the one poisoned. This is the problem with QTI - it seems to me almost inevitable that one will only survive in a very unfortunate state, at least for a long time. In the end, it looks like that, but computer science suggest jumps, like sort of 1p-phase transition in decaying universal machine. But it is technically still rather complex. Drugs experience, and sleep, illustrates that few simple 3p change can alter consciousness drastically. Concentrating on the unfortunate state can lead to bad trips and an unfortunate state. Some 1p states are more defined by what you expect than by what you got. (that part of why the logic of Bp Dp differ from Bp). Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/6/2013 12:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_%28mathematics%29 ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:57, meekerdb wrote: On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Describe an experience which gives sense to absolute measure. Isn't this required to prove comp, by looking at the results of running the UD for a long time? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 December 2013 21:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 20:05, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. I don't see this. Surely you are far more likely to have experienced the nausea and pain, and to have nevertheless survived somehow - by a very unlikely chance - than to have lucked out and not been gassed at all? This is the problem with QTI - it seems to me almost inevitable that one will only survive in a very unfortunate state, at least for a long time. Yes, if QTI, or Computational Immortality are true, then the only way to explain them, given we are not infinitely old, is that we are in a state of amnesia concerning our true history of experiences. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 04 Dec 2013, at 18:17, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/ statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If God exists as mathematics, infinite sets, or neutrinos, how can we deal with it? What evidence would it take to demonstrate convincingly, to you, Dr. Marchal, that Drelb is the Great One? What mathematical proof would it show you that Pi, out to a quadrillion integers is God, or Phi? To 'touch faith' as the olde British 80's rock song (personal Jesus) stated, we must somehow interact with the 'other.' The other has to be someone we know is true, tactile, rational. I use God in the general sense of transcendental reality we can be aware of, or guess or produce as true without rational justification. It is close to Parmenides and the (neo)-platonists. You can also define it by what exists when you stop to believe in a primitive physical reality. What do *you* mean by God? Do you agree with the axioms I gave: God is responsible (reason, cause, whatever) for your existence. God does not admit any description or name if God is given a name, another God appears behind. OK? Plato's God was Truth, and this fits well with the arithmetical comp interpretation of Plotinus. We have to agree on some axioms and reason from that. If not we fall in endless uninteresting vocabulary discussions. Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 5:32 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary, shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas, histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do. In which theory? When we talk on Matter or primitively material universe, we deal also with ideas, beliefs, assumptions or myth (even dogma, for many, or even unconscious dogma, for those who sleep in this subject). God is not an alien, although our comp-finiteness could make us confuse a God with some possible alien. In fact if we give a name to a God, we make it into a sort of alien, hiding some possible God. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth,
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 04 Dec 2013, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote: On 12/4/2013 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel. That is a result of having separated theology from science. I think you have a pollyannish view of history. Theology, the belief in superhuman gods, preceded science as a disciple by millenia. Theology was based on faith and priests and dogma, and it supported the state. Theologians held secret, esoteric discussions of the gods, but if they deviated much from the theology of the state they were punished (c.f. Socrates and your namesake). Science was only able to come into existence as an empirical search for truths when the Church was split and weakened and theology was left to apologetics. Half of science. The branch of theology was kept by authorities. I don't know how you imagine science could have developed if it had separated from theology - nor how it could proceed now by taking up theology. By not eliminating person. Note that there have been scientific tests of theology: specifically of the efficacy of healing prayer. So it is not that scientists reject dogmas out of hand. Good. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naďve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Which theologians? There is no agreement among theologians. There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among Quantum physicists. Not about the experimental facts. But there are also the first person facts, which, once we postulate comp, get indirectly verifiable. Machine's theology is verifiable by its consequences in physics. The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open- mind that is needed in science to progress. Absence of agreement is what makes science possible. And the testability of theories. We agree on this. And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology. They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would. By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of credulity/spirituality. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled famous theologians and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur. Googling
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 04 Dec 2013, at 11:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote: You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. So you think that your belief in COMP is product of a computation, At many levels. yes. if comp is assumed, that belief is generated by the infinitely many bruno marchal generated notably by all emulations of the history of the Milky Way at the level of strings and with one billion decimal exact, and more. so it is a belief, An assumption we can do, yes. but not a true meta-belief of the meta-numeical reality, We don't know that, and we cannot know that. But we may know that such belief is wrong. so it is not worth a belief fo Bruno Marchall?. Why? Bruno suc(1010011) sorry, a meta-glith in the UDA. Please call the measurers to fix it out. 2013/12/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:57, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our imagination. I seem to restrict, but comp is an assumption of finiteness, which augment the unlimited possibilities. Non comp is what limits the possibility. Little things go through *more* holes than big things. I am only more open minded on the unlimited possible relation between machines and truth. Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY work? You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. Do you have support for YOUR version of consciousness as the ONLY possible input for Matter (as we THINK of it TODAY?) ? I don't understand. And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth? I have no pretension at all on any truth. I explain two things: - 1) IF we are machine, THEN physics IS a branch of numbers bio- psycho-theology (a part of arithmetic). -2) and this makes the assumption (of being a machine) refutable, as I provide a constructive means to derive physics from arithmetic. 1) is given by the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), and 2) is provided by the translation of the UDA in arithmetic (AUDA, the universal machine interview). May be it is the human lack of imagination of some of the humans of today which prevents them to listen to the machines of today, and to see that they saw what Plato and the mystics seems to have seen too. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 08:03, LizR wrote: On 5 December 2013 19:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, it doesn't drop while you approach death. Probabilities add up to one... And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. In fact you don't approach death, assuming QTI, Or assuming just computationalism. In fact you don't approach death in the 1p view, but there is a sense to approach death in the 3p view (and even in the 1p view you can still approach agony and near death sorts of states). bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Bruno especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper- intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 5 December 2013 20:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your current state. Excuse my ignorance, I realise SSA is the self-sampling assumption (I think I read about that in Russell's book) but what is the ASSA, and why is it useless and wrong? Reading posts further down, it seems to me that we're dealing with a continuum rather than discrete branches, is that right? So everyone is an uncountable infinity of selves. (And always will be, for ever and ever...) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 5 December 2013 20:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your current state. Excuse my ignorance, I realise SSA is the self-sampling assumption (I think I read about that in Russell's book) but what is the ASSA, ASSA is absolute self sampling assumption... it means there exists an absolute measure for every moments, ASSA states that your measure is always decreasing... ASSA is absurd because ASSA predicts you shouldn't find yourself alive now. RSSA is relative self sampling assumption and state that measure only make sense relative to your current state, there doesn't exist an absolute measure. Quentin and why is it useless and wrong? Reading posts further down, it seems to me that we're dealing with a continuum rather than discrete branches, is that right? So everyone is an uncountable infinity of selves. (And always will be, for ever and ever...) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument, dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of biologically surviving instances. When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50% chance you would stop being you when you pull the trigger, but that there is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive. And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies, relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 5 December 2013 20:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your current state. Excuse my ignorance, I realise SSA is the self-sampling assumption (I think I read about that in Russell's book) but what is the ASSA, ASSA is absolute self sampling assumption... it means there exists an absolute measure for every moments, ASSA states that your measure is always decreasing... ASSA is absurd because ASSA predicts you shouldn't find yourself alive now. This isn't clear. Why (under the ASSA) shouldn't we be alive right now while under the RSSA we ought to? RSSA is relative self sampling assumption and state that measure only make sense relative to your current state, there doesn't exist an absolute measure. How did you get to our current state to begin with? If we keep following it backwards it seems it leads to some primordial conscious state from which any future state might emerge. If the branch in which your are shot by the quantum gun kills you, perhaps that is equivalent to being reset to this primordial state, and your next conscious moment could be anything. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Quentin Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as there is a 10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot, but we can. Jason Quentin Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument, dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of biologically surviving instances. When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50% chance you would stop being you when you pull the trigger, but that there is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive. And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies, relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat? No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more likely. Quentin 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument, dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of biologically surviving instances. When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50% chance you would stop being you when you pull the trigger, but that there is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive. And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies, relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat? No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more likely. My understanding of the RSSA vs. ASSA difference concerns only the expectation of one's next conscious experience. That is, the RSSA does not deny the reality of an objective, global, relative measure of all observers, it says only that the measure of those other observers (which are not continuations of one's current state) are irrelevant to predicting your next experience. Is this incorrect? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. Quentin If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as there is a 10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot, but we can. Jason Quentin Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 09:53, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. I was considering only the continuations where you survive, (which subjectively is one), but the proportion of the continuations where you survive that are explained by non-traditional means (simulation argument, dream of God, etc.) increases relative to the dwindling the fraction of biologically surviving instances. When I spoke of one's measure decreasing, I was referring to the person's objective measure in reality, which to me seems to decrease when one is tested by a dangerous encounter. I am not suggesting that there was a 50% chance you would stop being you when you pull the trigger, but that there is an ever increasing chance you will take some strange paths to survive. And this is because the measure of the biologically surviving copies, relative to the non-biological surviving copies, decreases. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Does RSSA imply one does no harm to their measure (objective or subjective) by spending a day in the the box with Schrodinger's cat? No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more likely. My understanding of the RSSA vs. ASSA difference concerns only the expectation of one's next conscious experience. That is, the RSSA does not deny the reality of an objective, global, relative measure of all observers It doesn't deby it, it doesn't say anything about it... the thing is, ASSA is inconsisent, and not compatible with RSSA. Quentin , it says only that the measure of those other observers (which are not continuations of one's current state) are irrelevant to predicting your next experience. Is this incorrect? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? What would you predict if you knew thought that 1% of your explanations are Drelb-like entities which want to provide you an afterlife after simulating your demise? Jason Quentin If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as there is a 10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot, but we can. Jason Quentin Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? If the poison was 100% sure to kill you instantly... I predict (if comp or MWI is true) to be alive and safe. What would you predict if you knew thought that 1% of your explanations are Drelb-like entities which want to provide you an afterlife after simulating your demise? That I have 99% chance of being in a non Dreb like world. Quentin Jason Quentin If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as there is a
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:09, Jason Resch wrote: Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? Really? Only in the case of classical QM, but did he pretend that to be really the case? He would favor string theory on any literal quantization of curbature. By Gleason, the relative measure works very well. In Everett, all measurement defined coherent partition of the block multiverse. In comp, it is an open problem, partially solved. If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as there is a 10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot, but we can. I might have missed something. I think I agree with Quentin on this one, but there might be a misunderstanding. I will read the other posts. Bruno Jason Quentin Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? If the poison was 100% sure to kill you instantly... I predict (if comp or MWI is true) to be alive and safe. What would you predict if you knew thought that 1% of your explanations are Drelb-like entities which want to provide you an afterlife after simulating your demise? That I have 99% chance of being in a non Dreb like world. After
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? If the poison was 100% sure to kill you instantly... I predict (if comp or MWI is true) to be alive and safe. What would you predict if you knew thought that 1% of your explanations are Drelb-like entities which want to provide you an afterlife after simulating your demise? That I have
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:09, Jason Resch wrote: Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? Really? Only in the case of classical QM, but did he pretend that to be really the case? He would favor string theory on any literal quantization of curbature. It came up here: http://books.google.com/books?id=dqgqPjqIyJoCprintsec=frontcoverdq=many+worlds+of+hugh+everetthl=ensa=Xei=0a6gUtqjJaOOyAGfpYCgBQved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepageq=non%20denumerablef=false But Podolsky said it, and maybe Everett thought agreeing was better than arguing over what kind of infinity it was. Jason By Gleason, the relative measure works very well. In Everett, all measurement defined coherent partition of the block multiverse. In comp, it is an open problem, partially solved. If not, it seems impossible to make predictions such as there is a 10% chance you will observe the photon to land in this spot, but we can. I might have missed something. I think I agree with Quentin on this one, but there might be a misunderstanding. I will read the other posts. Bruno Jason Quentin Jason the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. This would require that the simulation hypothesis has an extremely low (relative) probability. Jason Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for you. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? If the poison was 100% sure to kill you instantly... I predict (if comp or MWI is true) to be alive and safe. What would you predict if you knew thought that 1% of your explanations are Drelb-like entities which
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? If the poison was 100% sure to kill you instantly... I predict (if comp or MWI is true) to be alive and safe. What would you predict if you knew thought that
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. Are you OK for this? I pay you 10,000$ for accepting to sleep one night in my sleep laboratory, I tell you in advance that you will live a quite intense nightmare, but I promise you that you will be 100% amnesic of it and you will unaffected by the experience, are you OK? The slowing of the annihilation illustrates something weird. Before the experience the probability are one halve that you will feel either just passing a boring day with a cat in some chamber, or going through a slow unpleasant (ending?) event. Yet the probability that you survive, above one day, the experience seems to be still one. It is part of a finite path elimination process, from the 1p perspective. It is analogous to the backtracking. I am not sure it is correct as I cannot be sure the agonizing near death experience terminates, and for who? Nothing is simple here. I accept *total* annihilation experience only in thought experience! In practice it might not exist. We don't know (and can't know) our substitution level, and it depends on what you are willing to abandon, or to what you identify with is. 1-annihilation experiences are near death experiences. Is it clear that they have endings in the arithmetical reality? Who knows? The same can be asked for some type of dreams, and altered states of consciousness. In my opinion, understanding a theorem in arithmetic already provides a glimpse on a deep and atemporal experience, connected to the first person in virtue of an argument. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, Wanna borrow my gun? It's a lot more reliable than that. :-) 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:... Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. ?? They were in a different realm all along. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/5/2013 12:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:... Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. ?? They were in a different realm all along. But it was subjectively indistinguishable, as it is the execution of same program. When some of the programs stop, other incarnations of it continue. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Measure_(mathematics) ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. No, that is ASSA... especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, Relative to what? Does not one's measure of being alive drop in half with each trigger pull, (relative to your measure of being alive before the trigger pull)? but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. You are saying we cannot reduce one's measure for surviving in the physical universe to arbitrarily low levels? What would you say your relative measure of being alive in the physical world be after an atomic bomb went off 10 feet from you (relative to before it went off)? Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... Think of it like this: There are 10,000 explanations for your current experience. 9,950 are various physical and biological instances of you living on Earth, 30 instances are various ancestor simulations run by future humans, 15 are by advanced aliens in other universes, and 5 are by Drelb-like entities. If you shoot yourself in the head with a quantum gun, 4,975 of the 9,950 biological instances are dead, and 25 of the 50 simulated ones awaken from the simulation. You pull the trigger again, and 2488 of the 4975 biological survivors from the first trigger pull are dead, and 13 of the 25 simulated survivors wake up from their simulation. Note that with each trigger pull, the proportion who are still alive (either in the simulation or having awoken from it) remains the same: at 50, while the population of physical/biological entities is cut in half each time. After another 12 or so trigger pulls the only remaining survivors will be those that were simulated, and all of them now find themselves in a different realm. If what I said above is the ASSA, then what does the RSSA say concerning the above analysis? That is invalid, because there are never a finite number of next continuations. Everett said there is a non-denumerable number of copies, can you not apply relative measure to these? You can... why coudn't you...? What I said, is that Dreb world will always be less likely than simple physical explanation for your current moment... It should be , or we all should have met Dreb by now. If it is infinite, take Jason's numbers as proportions (which does not make much sense in front of arithmetic, but are still conceivable as a well defined protocol. In those thought experiences there is a limitation principle used of the time: like the hypothesis that there are no reconstitutions elsewhere, which makes no sense. We can only hope our normal stories multiply us at the right level for us to survive, be it biologically, physically, or arithmetically. I have not read the novel, the point is that a real, concrete, duplication will already be a multi-duplication relatively to the normal computations, and if you are copied at that level, the probability of being Drelb is not
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But what has happened is that science has taken away more and more of their domain, It was in the domain at the start. Science is only a lamp, not a truth. It is a way to look at any domain. And the way science looks at a domain is to make models and test them by observation and manipulation. If the models are comprehensive, consilient, have predictive power, then they are tentatively accepted in sense of being assumed in support of other studies. That's why I think that when we are able to make robots that behave like humans we will have models of conscious thought that are much more fine grained than we do now. But conversely we will not longer think What is consciousness to be sensible question. It is just that very often humans get attached to some theory, and are followed by the don't ask attitude by those who coerce for some statu quo. And very often humans have gotten attached to the wrong question and have wasted centuries theorizing over answers. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In measure theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_%28mathematics%29 ) just because there are an infinite number does not mean they are equal. Your measure each time you pull the trigger in the quantum gun is (approximately) halved. ? Your relative measure on the continuations where you survive remains constant and equal to one. We cannot count the cul-de-sac reality (and that is why Bp Dt can give a quantum measure). Some absolute measure does not make sense. Why not? It measures something different, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Dec 2013, at 17:20, Jason Resch wrote: So if you were to spend a day in the box with Schrodinger's cat (each hour having a 50% chance of poisoning you), what would you predict experience to be at the end of that day? I like to answer this by this: At the end of the day I feel well and kiss the cat, together with a total amnesia of having gazed, which begin by a nausea, vomiting, cruel pain and agonizing death. I would put quantum flowers on 'his' quantum tomb to have died for me. Respect for the little kitty too. Would you say there is a greater probability of ending up in a strange and different place on this day, compared to normal days when you don't face a 999,999 out of 1,000,000 chance of being killed? Are you OK for this? I pay you 10,000$ for accepting to sleep one night in my sleep laboratory, I tell you in advance that you will live a quite intense nightmare, but I promise you that you will be 100% amnesic of it and you will unaffected by the experience, are you OK? $10,000 is a lot of money, it's hard to think of a nightmare so bad (even without the amnesia) that would not make it worth taking the money. In the equivalent example of torture + amnesia, under which I would be willing to pay $10,000 to avoid to avoid the torture (with or without amnesia), then I think the logical decision is still to reject the torture and $10,000 even if it comes with amnesia. The slowing of the annihilation illustrates something weird. Before the experience the probability are one halve that you will feel either just passing a boring day with a cat in some chamber, or going through a slow unpleasant (ending?) event. Yet the probability that you survive, above one day, the experience seems to be still one. It is part of a finite path elimination process, from the 1p perspective. It is analogous to the backtracking. I am not sure it is correct as I cannot be sure the agonizing near death experience terminates, and for who? Nothing is simple here. Indeed. I accept *total* annihilation experience only in thought experience! In practice it might not exist. We don't know (and can't know) our substitution level, and it depends on what you are willing to abandon, or to what you identify with is. 1-annihilation experiences are near death experiences. Is it clear that they have endings in the arithmetical reality? Who knows? The same can be asked for some type of dreams, and altered states of consciousness. The way I have for a time looked at is, is there are X instances that explain your current experience. Some may be ordinary while others might be, say a dream. If in your experience, you encounter something you are unlikely to survive ordinarily, like a Mushroom cloud on the horizon, then you will likely next find yourself waking from a dream. (Since all the non-dreaming ordinary explanations are dead). Is there something wrong with this reasoning? In my opinion, understanding a theorem in arithmetic already provides a glimpse on a deep and atemporal experience, connected to the first person in virtue of an argument. I will need to think more on this. Thanks. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 8:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote: How did you get to our current state to begin with? If we keep following it backwards it seems it leads to some primordial conscious state from which any future state might emerge. If the branch in which your are shot by the quantum gun kills you, perhaps that is equivalent to being reset to this primordial state, and your next conscious moment could be anything. Including not being you. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 8:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more likely. So what was your measure before you were born? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/5/2013 11:05 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The way I have for a time looked at is, is there are X instances that explain your current experience. Some may be ordinary while others might be, say a dream. If in your experience, you encounter something you are unlikely to survive ordinarily, like a Mushroom cloud on the horizon, then you will likely next find yourself waking from a dream. (Since all the non-dreaming ordinary explanations are dead). Or as a fetus. But both of these raise the question of why is it *you*. You will have dreamed of being someone different. Is a newborn, with none of your memories, still you? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/5/2013 8:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, because there is no absolute measure to decrease to begin with. The thing is, doing dangerous thing *increase* likeliness to experience being crippled, that's what is more likely. So what was your measure before you were born? I don't think it has any meaning... but what do you think ? Quentin 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
