--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a41eef3-3584-43dd-b9b7-dd0034a78932%40googlegroups.com.
Hogan is a pessimist when it comes to human ability to understand new things. He has this "end of science" bug, and I will confess that I suppose science will end. In fact I have doubts about Homo sapiens being around before long, so science will clearly at least go down with us. However, I see little productive in following or thinking along his lines.LC
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/790aeb07-04ce-4332-9d0c-f291c5fefc5f%40googlegroups.com.
>> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds. What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
> None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible.
> Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything?
> Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.
> Let’s say physicists convince themselves that string theory is in fact the final theory, which encodes the fundamental laws from which nature springs. Theorists must still explain where those laws came from, just as believers in God must explain where He came from.
> As for life, Dawkins’s claim that it is no longer a mystery is absurd. In spite of all the advances in biology since Darwin, we still don’t have a clue how life began,
> Brain scientists still have no idea how our brains make us conscious,
> and even if they did, that knowledge would apply only to human consciousness. It would not yield a general theory of consciousness, which determines what sort of physical systems generate conscious states.
> It would not tell us whether it feels like something to be a bat,
> The older I get, the more I appreciate what philosopher Paul Feyerabend said to me in 1992 when I broached the possibility of total knowledge.
By John Horgan on September 4, 2019> Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything?No. If the chain of "why" questions are infinite then obviously science can't answer an infinite number of questions nor can anything else. And if the chain is not infinite then eventually you'll run into a brute fact, and by their very nature there is no how or why about brute facts, they just are. For example, I think a brute fact is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.> Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.Does anyone still believe that a divine creator can explain, well, everything?
Does anyone still believe that a divine creator can explain, well, ANYTHING?
On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> I would put "Horganism" another way.
>
> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their
> application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final
> ones to be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are
> not.) There is no settled story of gravity yet, much less
> consciousness. One reads about a new story of gravity in science news
> every week, it seems.
>
> David Chalmers' conclusion is ...
>
> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason to
> take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can
> find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this
> view would immediately become the most promising solution to the
> mind–body problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and
> sustained attention."
> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
--
@philipthrift
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2ee1ec0-b78b-4364-b648-eb81596d4233%40googlegroups.com.
I think the measurement problem ultimately needs a theory of consciousness to bottom out, and I think computationalism and the "engineering theory of consciousness" will fill that need.
Brent
On 6 Sep 2019, at 22:06, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
via John Horgan @Horganism
The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience
As time passes, the claim that science can comprehend everything looks increasingly nutty
By John Horgan on September 4, 2019
Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything? This belief was ascendant in the 1980s, when my career began. Bigshot scientists proclaimed that they were solving the riddle of existence. They would soon explain why our universe exists and takes the form it does, and why we exist and are what we are.For years I believed this claim, out of deference to scientists propagating it and desire to believe. The vision of a revelation to end all revelations thrilled me. Eventually I had doubts, which I spelled out in The End of Science and other writings. Lately, I’ve begun to look at the vision of total knowledge as a laughable delusion, a pathological fantasy that should never have been taken seriously, even though brilliant scientists propagated it.Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.I’ve often suspected that Hawking, who had a wicked sense of humor, was goofing when he talked about an “ultimate theory.” The success of Brief History nonetheless inspired lots of similar books by physicists, including Theories of Everything by John Barrow (1991), The Mind of God by Paul Davies (1992) and Dreams of a Final Theory by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.Weinberg, a deadly serious man, was definitely not kidding when he envisioned a final theory. He argued that with the help of a new “supercollider” in Texas (which ended up being canceled), physicists might soon “bring to an end a certain kind of science, the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.”Like Hawking, Weinberg hoped that the final theory would crush, once and for all, our superstitious faith in an all-powerful, beneficent deity. “It would be wonderful to find in the laws of nature a plan, prepared by a concerned creator in which human being played some special role,” Weinberg wrote. “I find sadness in doubting that they will.”Physicists were not the only scientists bewitched by the dream of omniscience. “I take the position that there is nothing that cannot be understood,” Peter Atkins, a religion-bashing British chemist, stated in his 1981 book The Creation. “Fundamental science may almost be at an end and might be completed within a generation.” He added, “Complete knowledge is just within our grasp. Comprehension is moving across the face of the Earth, like the sunrise.”Then there was biologist Richard Dawkins, who declared in his 1986 bestseller The Blind Watchmaker that the mystery of life had already been solved. Our existence “once presented the greatest of mysteries,” Dawkins wrote, but “it is a mystery no longer, because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet.”One of those “footnotes” concerns the problem of consciousness. In the late 1980s Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix (and another hard-core atheist), proposed that consciousness, the subject of interminable philosophical speculation, might be scientifically tractable. Science could “solve” consciousness by finding its “neural correlates,” processes in the brain that correspond to conscious states.In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis, Crick declared that “’you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of neurons.” That statement might have been the high water mark of scientism and its corollaries, materialism and reductionism.Meanwhile, researchers were claiming that advances in computers and mathematics were illuminating chaotic and complex phenomena that had resisted traditional scientific analysis. These scientists, whom I like to call chaoplexologists, were finding common principles underpinning brains, immune systems, ecologies and nation-states. Economics and other social sciences would soon become as rigorous as chemistry and nuclear physics. Supposedly.To be charitable, all this hubris wasn’t entirely unjustified. After all, in the 1960s physicists confirmed the big bang theory and took steps toward a unified theory of all of nature’s forces, while biologists deciphered the genetic code. You can see how these and other successes, as well as advances in computers and other tools, might have persuaded optimists that total scientific knowledge was imminent.But the concept of scientific omniscience always suffered from fatal flaws. Read Brief History and other books carefully and you realize that the quest for an ultimate theory had taken physicists beyond the realm of experiment. String theory and other major candidates for an ultimate theory of physics can be neither experimentally confirmed nor falsified. They are untestable and hence not really scientific.Let’s say physicists convince themselves that string theory is in fact the final theory, which encodes the fundamental laws from which nature springs. Theorists must still explain where those laws came from, just as believers in God must explain where He came from. This is the problem of infinite regress, which bedevils all who try to explain why there is something rather than nothing.As for life, Dawkins’s claim that it is no longer a mystery is absurd. In spite of all the advances in biology since Darwin, we still don’t have a clue how life began, or whether it exists elsewhere in the cosmos. We don’t know whether our emergence was likely or a once-in-eternity fluke.Brain scientists still have no idea how our brains make us conscious, and even if they did, that knowledge would apply only to human consciousness. It would not yield a general theory of consciousness, which determines what sort of physical systems generate conscious states. It would not tell us whether it feels like something to be a bat, nematode or smart phone. As I argue in my new book Mind-Body Problems, science appears farther than ever from understanding the mind.There may still be a few true believers in scientific omniscience out there. Big Data boosters indulge in hype reminiscent of the heyday of chaoplexity (although the phrase “social science” remains as oxymoronic as ever). And in his 2011 book On Being, Peter Atkins, who is now 79, reiterated his “faith” that “there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate.” But I doubt many scientists share this view any more.Over the last decade or two, science has lost its mojo. The replication crisis has undermined the public’s confidence in scientists, and scientists’ confidence in themselves. It has made them humble--and that is a good thing. Because what if scientists had somehow convinced themselves, and the rest of us, that they had figured everything out? What a tragedy that would be. We’re better off in our current state of befuddlement, trying to comprehend this weird, weird world even though we know we’ll always fall short.The older I get, the more I appreciate what philosopher Paul Feyerabend said to me in 1992 when I broached the possibility of total knowledge. “You think that this one-day fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being--according to today's cosmology!--can figure it all out?” he asked me with a manic grin. “This to me seems so crazy! It cannot possibly be true! What they figured out is one particular response to their actions, and this response gives this universe, and the reality that is behind this is laughing! ‘Ha ha! They think they have found me out!’”I’ll close with a quote from Philip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics and leading chaoplexologist. When I interviewed him in 1994, Anderson derided the claims of some of his fellow scientists that they could solve the riddle of reality. “You never understand everything,” Anderson said. “When one understands everything, one has gone crazy.”ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology. His books include The End of Science, The End of War and Mind-Body Problems, available for free at mindbodyproblems.com.@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a41eef3-3584-43dd-b9b7-dd0034a78932%40googlegroups.com.
On 7 Sep 2019, at 02:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Horgan is wrong because he's apparently never really examined what sceintific "comprehension" consists of. It is the ability to tell a consistent story about what happens that has predictive power. It's not necessarily a story that satisfies people pre-conceptions of what story would be entertaining and satisfying and they could tell to kids a bedtime. Those are the stories religion tells. Sceince tells stories that work...and that's their defining characteristic. Chalmers can call consciousness "the hard problem" because he doesn't like the story in which it is a brain process.
It doesn't satisfy his intuition that in the story "consciousness" should be something he likes. The same thing happened when life was shown to be metabolism and reproduction...chemical processes.
But it's a story that works. And when neuroengineers and consciousness mechanics are designing and building human like AIs nobdy will worry about whether Chalmers likes the story or not.
Brent
On 9/6/2019 1:06 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
via John Horgan @Horganism
The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience
As time passes, the claim that science can comprehend everything looks increasingly nutty
By John Horgan on September 4, 2019
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/64291c27-3637-3fd1-d066-c91463aeccca%40verizon.net.
On 7 Sep 2019, at 05:11, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 5:26 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:Hogan is a pessimist when it comes to human ability to understand new things. He has this "end of science" bug, and I will confess that I suppose science will end. In fact I have doubts about Homo sapiens being around before long, so science will clearly at least go down with us. However, I see little productive in following or thinking along his lines.LCYou might find this worth a read: Humans: Extinct & Extant
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/790aeb07-04ce-4332-9d0c-f291c5fefc5f%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CANgFmkGqBtQrUL3%3DcHm2QFnJAdAGrfPq3sNEysEdg7m08VcepA%40mail.gmail.com.
On 7 Sep 2019, at 07:21, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> I would put "Horganism" another way.
>
> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their
> application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final
> ones to be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are
> not.) There is no settled story of gravity yet, much less
> consciousness. One reads about a new story of gravity in science news
> every week, it seems.
>
> David Chalmers' conclusion is ...
>
> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason to
> take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can
> find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this
> view would immediately become the most promising solution to the
> mind–body problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and
> sustained attention."
> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
Zero predictive power and it's not clear that it's consistent with the
rest of neurophysics.
Brent
Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds.What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e15cc52-6f5b-4f00-a77e-7cc6c3c63bcb%40googlegroups.com.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQCRRaM7QoG59%2BTKs99TzFFMVQJq6R1Hd0VZ8aWqW-Wmg%40mail.gmail.com.
> On 7 Sep 2019, at 07:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/6/2019 9:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> I would put "Horganism" another way.
>>
>> Science tells stories/theories, and some are successful in their application. But we don't know if any of the stories are the final ones to be told, or even close to being final. (They probably are not.) There is no settled story of gravity yet, much less consciousness. One reads about a new story of gravity in science news every week, it seems.
>>
>> David Chalmers' conclusion is ...
>>
>> "I think that the Hegelian [dialectical] argument gives good reason to take both panpsychism and panprotopsychism very seriously. If we can find a reasonable solution to the combination problem for either, this view would immediately become the most promising solution to the mind–body problem. So the combination problem deserves serious and sustained attention."
>> - http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf
>
> Zero predictive power and it's not clear that it's consistent with the rest of neurophysics.
+ zero explanation power at all, also.
Bruno
LC
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10a2ffa5-ee2b-47c0-adfe-9c22e556f345%40googlegroups.com.
LC--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/15d344a2-4c03-4f1e-81f4-5550d8cea470%40googlegroups.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/710c8709-0a08-454d-930c-8a4f7a04590a%40googlegroups.com.
Brent
--
@philipthrift
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2ee1ec0-b78b-4364-b648-eb81596d4233%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1469e2ab-628f-2304-6f38-585c3cd67e3a%40verizon.net.
On 7 Sep 2019, at 08:04, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 3:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:On 9/6/2019 10:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds.
What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible. But it does go a way toward making the story of measurement more consistent.Amplify the above statement.Even Zurek, who starts from a many worlds perspective, thinks that ultimately one can abandon the non-seen worlds as irrelevant.But irrelevant does not mean false. So it is irrelevant in physics, but it is not irrelevant in theology. It might plays a role concerning the interpretation of death, like with quantum immortality.
On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:17, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:09:27 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:>> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds. What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
> None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible.Many Worlds predicts that the best any observer will be able to do is make probabilistic predictions, and Gleason's theorem says that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), and not the cube or anything else, can yield a probability without inconsistencies.John K ClarkGleason's theorem is sort of a special case of Born rule for the case an operator is the unit operator. There is an interesting chase after the Born rule, and some people do think that certain quantum interpretations give the added axiomatic "boost" necessary to prove that. I am agnostic about those claims. If this does turn out to be the case I would give the best bet to either MWI or QuBism.LCIf the best bet is either MWI or QuBism then theoretical physics is indeed doomed.Yes. But theoretical physics is not doomed, only physicalism, or the idea that physics is the fundamental science. As such it is not doomed, but explain by something non physical, simpler, even if transcendent.Bruno
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:00:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:17, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:09:27 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:>> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds. What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
> None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible.Many Worlds predicts that the best any observer will be able to do is make probabilistic predictions, and Gleason's theorem says that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), and not the cube or anything else, can yield a probability without inconsistencies.John K ClarkGleason's theorem is sort of a special case of Born rule for the case an operator is the unit operator. There is an interesting chase after the Born rule, and some people do think that certain quantum interpretations give the added axiomatic "boost" necessary to prove that. I am agnostic about those claims. If this does turn out to be the case I would give the best bet to either MWI or QuBism.LCIf the best bet is either MWI or QuBism then theoretical physics is indeed doomed.Yes. But theoretical physics is not doomed, only physicalism, or the idea that physics is the fundamental science. As such it is not doomed, but explain by something non physical, simpler, even if transcendent.BrunoI wrote this not with the expectation that the Born rule will be proven within either of these interpretations. I think the Born rule should likely be proven, proven to be false, or shown to be unprovable, outside the context of any interpretation. My statement is just that if it is proven within the context of an interpretation these two might have the greatest plausibility.LC
> I think the Born rule should likely be proven, proven to be false, or shown to be unprovable, outside the context of any interpretation.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2otQnCR8m0mMQow9Ot_AHy0hPGM8DPQNyoZJYZWT459Q%40mail.gmail.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f8eb9f6d-64b7-4b3e-b6cc-2f93eba42d77%40googlegroups.com.
Bruce--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSvB5Y2nv%2BHkrMC5rtTD3UWJqR_AP6%2Bd%2BSfheu80WPBqg%40mail.gmail.com.
On 8 Sep 2019, at 16:10, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:00:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:17, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 9:25:59 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:09:27 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:>> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds. What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
> None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible.Many Worlds predicts that the best any observer will be able to do is make probabilistic predictions, and Gleason's theorem says that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), and not the cube or anything else, can yield a probability without inconsistencies.John K ClarkGleason's theorem is sort of a special case of Born rule for the case an operator is the unit operator. There is an interesting chase after the Born rule, and some people do think that certain quantum interpretations give the added axiomatic "boost" necessary to prove that. I am agnostic about those claims. If this does turn out to be the case I would give the best bet to either MWI or QuBism.LCIf the best bet is either MWI or QuBism then theoretical physics is indeed doomed.Yes. But theoretical physics is not doomed, only physicalism, or the idea that physics is the fundamental science. As such it is not doomed, but explain by something non physical, simpler, even if transcendent.BrunoI wrote this not with the expectation that the Born rule will be proven within either of these interpretations. I think the Born rule should likely be proven, proven to be false, or shown to be unprovable, outside the context of any interpretation. My statement is just that if it is proven within the context of an interpretation these two might have the greatest plausibility.
LC@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/710c8709-0a08-454d-930c-8a4f7a04590a%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c8445d1b-ebee-4751-b8eb-a31e64c7c596%40googlegroups.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5be88f3a-5464-4afa-8799-f1f0ca1f377d%40googlegroups.com.
> I wrote this not with the expectation that the Born rule will be proven within either of these interpretations. I think the Born rule should likely be proven, proven to be false, or shown to be unprovable, outside the context of any interpretation.
On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:45 PM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 7 Sep 2019, at 08:04, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 3:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2019 10:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds.
What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible. But it does go a way toward making the story of measurement more consistent.
Amplify the above statement.
Even Zurek, who starts from a many worlds perspective, thinks that ultimately one can abandon the non-seen worlds as irrelevant.
But irrelevant does not mean false. So it is irrelevant in physics, but it is not irrelevant in theology. It might plays a role concerning the interpretation of death, like with quantum immortality.
If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense.
Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references.
Follow the Wikipedia entry on quantum suicide. The main problem
with the idea of quantum immortality is that not all
life-threatening events that one can encounter are in the form of
alternative outcomes to quantum processes. Quantum suicide is an
attempt to overcome this problem by linking death or survival
directly to the outcome of a particular quantum process. David
Deutsch was sceptical that this worked:
'Physicist David Deutsch, though a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation, states regarding quantum suicide that "that way of applying probabilities does not follow directly from quantum theory, as the usual one does. It requires an additional assumption, namely that when making decisions one should ignore the histories in which the decision-maker is absent....[M]y guess is that the assumption is false."
Tegmark was also doubtful about the chances for quantum immortality -- pointing out that dying is rarely a binary event; it is more often the result of a slow cumulative process.
Another argument that has been given here before is that if
quantum immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number
of people who are considerably older than the normal life
expectancy -- and we do not see people who are two or three
hundred years old. Even if the probabilities are very low, there
have been an awful lot of people born within the last 500 or so
years -- some must have survived on our branch if this scenario is
true.
That would be an indice that Mechanism is false, given that quantum immortality is deduce here from the already much more obvious arithmetical immortality, which is disturbing, but hard to avoid.
Well, as you know, I consider mechanism to be false in any case,
so the failure of quantum immortality is no news to me.
Are you saying that quantum suicide is also a non-sense (metaphysically, it is a practical non-sense).
It relates to the standard problem for Many worlds theory -- if a
quantum experiment with binary outcomes is performed many times,
there will always be observers who see major deviations from the
expected quantum probabilities. In which case, we cannot rely on
repeated experiments to be a reliable indicator of the underlying
probabilities. And if you cannot use long-run relative frequencies
to estimate probabilities, what do you use? David Wallace attempts
to get around this by simply dismissing the outliers as
"irrelevant" (You, I recall, have made a similar argument.)
Wallace even suggests that these outlying sets of results are
"lost in the quantum noise", but he does not elaborate on this
totally stupid claim. (Wallace, in "The Emergent Multiverse"
(2012))
If the reference assume a wave packet reduction, or a way “matter” can interfere with the computations in arithmetic, no need to give the references. It is just working in different theories.
None of this has anything to do with wave-packet reduction, so you can rest easy.
Bruce
via John Horgan @HorganismThe Delusion of Scientific OmniscienceAs time passes, the claim that science can comprehend everything looks increasingly nuttyBy John Horgan on September 4, 2019
Does anyone still believe that science can explain, well, everything? This belief was ascendant in the 1980s, when my career began. Bigshot scientists proclaimed that they were solving the riddle of existence. They would soon explain why our universe exists and takes the form it does, and why we exist and are what we are.For years I believed this claim, out of deference to scientists propagating it and desire to believe. The vision of a revelation to end all revelations thrilled me. Eventually I had doubts, which I spelled out in The End of Science and other writings. Lately, I’ve begun to look at the vision of total knowledge as a laughable delusion, a pathological fantasy that should never have been taken seriously, even though brilliant scientists propagated it.Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.I’ve often suspected that Hawking, who had a wicked sense of humor, was goofing when he talked about an “ultimate theory.” The success of Brief History nonetheless inspired lots of similar books by physicists, including Theories of Everything by John Barrow (1991), The Mind of God by Paul Davies (1992) and Dreams of a Final Theory by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.Weinberg, a deadly serious man, was definitely not kidding when he envisioned a final theory. He argued that with the help of a new “supercollider” in Texas (which ended up being canceled), physicists might soon “bring to an end a certain kind of science, the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.”Like Hawking, Weinberg hoped that the final theory would crush, once and for all, our superstitious faith in an all-powerful, beneficent deity. “It would be wonderful to find in the laws of nature a plan, prepared by a concerned creator in which human being played some special role,” Weinberg wrote. “I find sadness in doubting that they will.”Physicists were not the only scientists bewitched by the dream of omniscience. “I take the position that there is nothing that cannot be understood,” Peter Atkins, a religion-bashing British chemist, stated in his 1981 book The Creation. “Fundamental science may almost be at an end and might be completed within a generation.” He added, “Complete knowledge is just within our grasp. Comprehension is moving across the face of the Earth, like the sunrise.”Then there was biologist Richard Dawkins, who declared in his 1986 bestseller The Blind Watchmaker that the mystery of life had already been solved. Our existence “once presented the greatest of mysteries,” Dawkins wrote, but “it is a mystery no longer, because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet.”One of those “footnotes” concerns the problem of consciousness. In the late 1980s Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix (and another hard-core atheist), proposed that consciousness, the subject of interminable philosophical speculation, might be scientifically tractable. Science could “solve” consciousness by finding its “neural correlates,” processes in the brain that correspond to conscious states.In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis, Crick declared that “’you,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of neurons.” That statement might have been the high water mark of scientism and its corollaries, materialism and reductionism.Meanwhile, researchers were claiming that advances in computers and mathematics were illuminating chaotic and complex phenomena that had resisted traditional scientific analysis. These scientists, whom I like to call chaoplexologists, were finding common principles underpinning brains, immune systems, ecologies and nation-states. Economics and other social sciences would soon become as rigorous as chemistry and nuclear physics. Supposedly.To be charitable, all this hubris wasn’t entirely unjustified. After all, in the 1960s physicists confirmed the big bang theory and took steps toward a unified theory of all of nature’s forces, while biologists deciphered the genetic code. You can see how these and other successes, as well as advances in computers and other tools, might have persuaded optimists that total scientific knowledge was imminent.But the concept of scientific omniscience always suffered from fatal flaws. Read Brief History and other books carefully and you realize that the quest for an ultimate theory had taken physicists beyond the realm of experiment. String theory and other major candidates for an ultimate theory of physics can be neither experimentally confirmed nor falsified. They are untestable and hence not really scientific.Let’s say physicists convince themselves that string theory is in fact the final theory, which encodes the fundamental laws from which nature springs. Theorists must still explain where those laws came from, just as believers in God must explain where He came from. This is the problem of infinite regress, which bedevils all who try to explain why there is something rather than nothing.As for life, Dawkins’s claim that it is no longer a mystery is absurd. In spite of all the advances in biology since Darwin, we still don’t have a clue how life began, or whether it exists elsewhere in the cosmos. We don’t know whether our emergence was likely or a once-in-eternity fluke.Brain scientists still have no idea how our brains make us conscious, and even if they did, that knowledge would apply only to human consciousness. It would not yield a general theory of consciousness, which determines what sort of physical systems generate conscious states. It would not tell us whether it feels like something to be a bat, nematode or smart phone. As I argue in my new book Mind-Body Problems, science appears farther than ever from understanding the mind.There may still be a few true believers in scientific omniscience out there. Big Data boosters indulge in hype reminiscent of the heyday of chaoplexity (although the phrase “social science” remains as oxymoronic as ever). And in his 2011 book On Being, Peter Atkins, who is now 79, reiterated his “faith” that “there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate.” But I doubt many scientists share this view any more.Over the last decade or two, science has lost its mojo. The replication crisis has undermined the public’s confidence in scientists, and scientists’ confidence in themselves. It has made them humble--and that is a good thing. Because what if scientists had somehow convinced themselves, and the rest of us, that they had figured everything out? What a tragedy that would be. We’re better off in our current state of befuddlement, trying to comprehend this weird, weird world even though we know we’ll always fall short.The older I get, the more I appreciate what philosopher Paul Feyerabend said to me in 1992 when I broached the possibility of total knowledge. “You think that this one-day fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being--according to today's cosmology!--can figure it all out?” he asked me with a manic grin. “This to me seems so crazy! It cannot possibly be true! What they figured out is one particular response to their actions, and this response gives this universe, and the reality that is behind this is laughing! ‘Ha ha! They think they have found me out!’”I’ll close with a quote from Philip Anderson, a Nobel laureate in physics and leading chaoplexologist. When I interviewed him in 1994, Anderson derided the claims of some of his fellow scientists that they could solve the riddle of reality. “You never understand everything,” Anderson said. “When one understands everything, one has gone crazy.”ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology. His books include The End of Science, The End of War and Mind-Body Problems, available for free at mindbodyproblems.com.@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a41eef3-3584-43dd-b9b7-dd0034a78932%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%40mail.gmail.com.
> Re: Quantum immortalityNoting that changing a "Subject" in an emailer does not change the Topic
"The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)66 posts by 12 authorsa post is under in Google Groups.@philipthrift
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5d19acc8-1041-4b38-b259-b6494c20c4db%40googlegroups.com.Attachments:
- Auto Generated Inline Image 1
The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death.
--Bruce
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ_Qq0vB89yE080%2B9jshUY_6bBtUrw-ibb8rsohQPtaCg%40mail.gmail.com.
Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> a écrit :On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death.ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the case, so something is wrong with your theory.
--Bruce
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ_Qq0vB89yE080%2B9jshUY_6bBtUrw-ibb8rsohQPtaCg%40mail.gmail.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> a écrit :On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death.ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the case, so something is wrong with your theory.
> Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our branch if this scenario is true.
On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 8:45 PM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 7 Sep 2019, at 08:04, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 3:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2019 10:21 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing Many Worlds.
What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?
None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule from it...which I think is impossible. But it does go a way toward making the story of measurement more consistent.
Amplify the above statement.
Even Zurek, who starts from a many worlds perspective, thinks that ultimately one can abandon the non-seen worlds as irrelevant.
But irrelevant does not mean false. So it is irrelevant in physics, but it is not irrelevant in theology. It might plays a role concerning the interpretation of death, like with quantum immortality.
If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense.
Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references.Follow the Wikipedia entry on quantum suicide.
The main problem with the idea of quantum immortality is that not all life-threatening events that one can encounter are in the form of alternative outcomes to quantum processes.
Quantum suicide is an attempt to overcome this problem by linking death or survival directly to the outcome of a particular quantum process. David Deutsch was sceptical that this worked:
'Physicist David Deutsch, though a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation, states regarding quantum suicide that "that way of applying probabilities does not follow directly from quantum theory, as the usual one does. It requires an additional assumption, namely that when making decisions one should ignore the histories in which the decision-maker is absent....[M]y guess is that the assumption is false."Tegmark was also doubtful about the chances for quantum immortality -- pointing out that dying is rarely a binary event; it is more often the result of a slow cumulative process.
Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy
-- and we do not see people who are two or three hundred years old.
Even if the probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our branch if this scenario is true.
That would be an indice that Mechanism is false, given that quantum immortality is deduce here from the already much more obvious arithmetical immortality, which is disturbing, but hard to avoid.
Well, as you know, I consider mechanism to be false in any case, so the failure of quantum immortality is no news to me.
Are you saying that quantum suicide is also a non-sense (metaphysically, it is a practical non-sense).
It relates to the standard problem for Many worlds theory -- if a quantum experiment with binary outcomes is performed many times, there will always be observers who see major deviations from the expected quantum probabilities. In which case, we cannot rely on repeated experiments to be a reliable indicator of the underlying probabilities.
And if you cannot use long-run relative frequencies to estimate probabilities, what do you use? David Wallace attempts to get around this by simply dismissing the outliers as "irrelevant" (You, I recall, have made a similar argument.) Wallace even suggests that these outlying sets of results are "lost in the quantum noise", but he does not elaborate on this totally stupid claim. (Wallace, in "The Emergent Multiverse" (2012))
If the reference assume a wave packet reduction, or a way “matter” can interfere with the computations in arithmetic, no need to give the references. It is just working in different theories.None of this has anything to do with wave-packet reduction, so you can rest easy.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f239f2e2-d9ec-96ba-aba6-75d99c9856ac%40optusnet.com.au.
But if tornados are just mental creations,
where everything mental is a numerical fixed point, then all reality *is* numerical simulation.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33931cf8-bf93-46b5-8a1d-3b2e810a12ea%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0c9b0ed2-f183-c862-8503-428da91d0964%40verizon.net.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRd0dyOn_JreAHuEfBKpWuSP5f2VkBpO9rZ4QbG79sUQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
--Bruce
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypW3Nz0gZBF%2BqO3OYq%3DQyPJh_COrJmGGEQM0ssmWn2cf9g%40mail.gmail.com.
Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 14:01, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:
The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death.
ASSA is not a law of physics. I am not assuming random sampling from anything. It is just that you spend more time old than young given quantum immortality. That is not to say that you are never young -- of course you have to pass through all the years since your birth, one year at a time. It is just that there are more years after any given age than before that age.
And so by this reasoning I must be old near death, and it's not the case, so something is wrong with your theory.
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 9/10/2019 5:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
> immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
> who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
> do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
> probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
> born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
> branch if this scenario is true.
My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
than even the oldest people we know.
You could be very old, but (perhaps temporarily) amnesiac.
Then it's strange that so many other people and photographs happen to agree with my memory. Must be a conspiracy to hide the secret of quantum immortality. It would certainly be unpopular once people thought about what it means.
Brent
I mean amnesic regarding the full extent of your billion+ year life.
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum
> immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people
> who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we
> do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the
> probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people
> born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our
> branch if this scenario is true.
My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older
than even the oldest people we know.That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr. So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does not imply QI.Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective level it only decreases.
On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been shown many times to be a complete nonsense.
Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references.Follow the Wikipedia entry on quantum suicide.
That is not what I mean by a reference.
None of this has anything to do with wave-packet reduction, so you can rest easy.
You lost me here. With the wave reduction, there is just no quantum immortality at all, nor even quantum suicide. I guess I mess something.
The only “reasonable” critics was the one done by Jacques Mallah on this list, which claims that if QI or MI is correct, we should expect to be very old. But Quentin answered this validly: we expect in all situation to be just a bit older than where we remember coming from, and the paradox comes from a confusing between relative and absolute self-sampling on the states or histories.
Typically, also, old and young are not absolute concept.
With mechanism or quantum mechanics without collapse, we can say that we are always young.
QI requires many worlds.Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRUGzHK%3D7u7FizR%3DcgVR68QbJa7wJ9oD14cFh5cwVMfoA%40mail.gmail.com.