WHAT IF

[bozo de niro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OlGaPiUJUI

What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:29:28 PM UTC-7, bozo de niro wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OlGaPiUJUI
>
> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?

That is an old SF theme. There was a lot of it around in the 1940s and 50s.

bill

[Hibou]

Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :
>
> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? [...]

Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)

It seems our vast Universe is almost entirely inanimate, life a rare
behaviour of matter, and life clever enough to wonder about itself rarer
yet. (I find this a useful thought, especially when I catch myself
fretting over the petty.)

It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
small a sample. (There's a parallel with the flea that thinks the dog
has been created for its benefit.)

[Peter Moylan]

The costs can be spread out if you run multiple experiments, located on
different planets. Given the size of the universe, it would be easy to
place those planets so far apart from one another that there is zero
chance of the different groups discovering one another, even if they
develop advanced forms of space travel.

But why such a big universe? The experimenters might not have a lot of
control over this detail. Having chosen a "big bang" model with an
inflationary phase, they are possibly unable to prevent the generation
of far more stars than are needed.

Bill has mentioned that this theme was big in the SF of the 1940s and
1950s. Newer versions have, however, appeared now and then. For example,
in Heinlein's "Job" (1984, which might have amused Orwell) the creator
of our universe is revealed to be a minor apprentice deity who is
finally censured for doing such sloppy work.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[J. J. Lodder]

Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> >>expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> >>and how we react? [...]
> >Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>

> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"

>
> >It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> >small a sample.
>

> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!

Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
there are always infinitely many worlds.
Always have been, and always will be.
Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

On 30-May-23 12:14, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 30/05/23 16:05, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :
>>>
>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive
>>> experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react?
>>> [...]
>>
>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>>
>> It seems our vast Universe is almost entirely inanimate, life a rare
>> behaviour of matter, and life clever enough to wonder about itself rarer
>> yet. (I find this a useful thought, especially when I catch myself
>> fretting over the petty.)
>>
>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
>> small a sample. (There's a parallel with the flea that thinks the dog
>> has been created for its benefit.)
>
> The costs can be spread out if you run multiple experiments, located on
> different planets. Given the size of the universe, it would be easy to
> place those planets so far apart from one another that there is zero
> chance of the different groups discovering one another, even if they
> develop advanced forms of space travel.
>
> But why such a big universe? The experimenters might not have a lot of
> control over this detail. Having chosen a "big bang" model with an
> inflationary phase, they are possibly unable to prevent the generation
> of far more stars than are needed.

If they initiated the Big Bang, they would have to wait around 200
million years for the process to operate before the first stars formed.
If that/those deities were actually interested in squidgy pink bipeds
living on a single planet (why?!?), then they would have to wait another
13 billion years or so to encounter them. This seems less than credible
- even for an immortal deity.

>
> Bill has mentioned that this theme was big in the SF of the 1940s and
> 1950s. Newer versions have, however, appeared now and then. For example,
> in Heinlein's "Job" (1984, which might have amused Orwell) the creator
> of our universe is revealed to be a minor apprentice deity who is
> finally censured for doing such sloppy work.
>

--

Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

Buzz Lightyear had a more catchy version of this.

--
Sam Plusnet

[bozo de niro]

I'm from the 40s and 50s, and I didn't say it was original, I just said it sounds eminently reasonable and practical. Like there's been the same Jewish accountant on the same experimental project for the last effing million years or so and he doesn't want anybody fucking with any of the parameters, so nothing much changes, cuz it's not supposed to — Capiche?

[Hibou]

Le 30/05/2023 à 21:26, Sam Plusnet a écrit :
>
> If they initiated the Big Bang, they would have to wait around 200
> million years for the process to operate before the first stars formed.
> If that/those deities were actually interested in squidgy pink bipeds
> living on a single planet (why?!?), then they would have to wait another
> 13 billion years or so to encounter them.  This seems less than credible
> - even for an immortal deity.

That's the essence of faith, I think. The more unlikely a thing is, the
greater and more praiseworthy the faith needed to believe it or in it.

I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).

[occam]

'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?

In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
'time' is not a problem for Her.

[Hibou]

Le 31/05/2023 à 10:47, Stefan Ram a écrit :

> Hibou writes:
>> I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
>> has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).
>

> Richard Sosis' article "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual" says,
>
> |Rituals promote group cohesion by requiring members
> |to engage in behavior that is too costly to fake
> in "American Scientist", Vol. 92, March-April 2004.
>
> When something makes believers struggle, it is costly, which promotes
> cohesion according to Sosis. So, it has to be unreasonable.

... "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again:
draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one
can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I
was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." ...
- 'Through the Looking-Glass', Lewis Carroll.

[Hibou]

Le 31/05/2023 à 11:28, Hibou a écrit :

... "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again:
draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one
can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast." ...
- 'Through the Looking-Glass', Lewis Carroll.

(Line breaks tidied.)

[Paul Wolff]

On Wed, 31 May 2023, at 09:47:08, Stefan Ram posted:
>Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>I think many believers have struggled with their faith when their reason
>>has told them it's... unreasonable (the problem of evil etc.).
>

> Richard Sosis' article "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual" says,
>
>|Rituals promote group cohesion by requiring members
>|to engage in behavior that is too costly to fake
>in "American Scientist", Vol. 92, March-April 2004.

Why would it be so costly to fake behaviour in "American Scientist"?

>
> When something makes believers struggle, it is costly, which promotes
> cohesion according to Sosis. So, it has to be unreasonable.

I don't think this answers my question.
--
Paul W

[Sam Plusnet]

Surely even monkeys have abandoned typewriters by now?

Young folk would probably fail to understand the concept.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Moylan]

In any case, the "imfinite number of monkeys" experiment has already
been tried in places like Facebook, and the results have not been
encouraging.

[J. J. Lodder]

occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 30/05/2023 22:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Stefan Ram <r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>>> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and
> >>>> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us
> >>>> and how we react? [...]
> >>> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
> >>
> >> God: "Thanks for your email! Yes, you're right. And you know what?
> >> Sometimes, I ask myself the /same question/: Am I (God) just an
> >> expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching me
> >> and how I react? Sincerly. PS: How did you find out my email address?"
> >>
> >>> It would be a curious experiment that used so much apparatus to study so
> >>> small a sample.
> >>
> >> That's what some think about the MWI interpretaion of
> >> quantum mechanics. It says that during each measurement
> >> loads of new worlds are created. Loads of new worlds, too,
> >> are quite an apparatus to solve so small a problem, the
> >> so-called "measurement problem" of quantum mechanics!
> >
> > Not really. In the many worlds interpretation
> > there are always infinitely many worlds.
> > Always have been, and always will be.
> > Creating more worlds doesn't increase the number of them,
> >
>
>
> 'them' you mean gods? So, one God to rule them all?

There is nothing to rule.

> In that case, God is playing the 'infinite number of monkeys with
> infinite number of typewriters' game. Plus, you have to remember that
> 'time' is not a problem for Her.

You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

They might be able to understand real numbers instead.
(which was what it was all about to begin with)

Jan

[occam]

All that is possible by the laws of physics that *you and I are aware
of*. Can I suggest that the 'infinite universes' theory is nothing but
conjecture.

[J. J. Lodder]

It isn't a theory, and it never was one.
And it isn't a conjecture either.
It is -an interpretation-, like its full name:
'The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics'
explicitly says.

Your awareness (or mine) has nothing to do with it,
because there is nothing to be aware of.
The MWI depends on standard Quantum Mechanics,
like all other interpretations.

If you want it to be more than just another interpretation
you'll have to invent new physics,

Jan

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Just show me *one* parallel universe, OK?

Infinities are dubious things to juggle with.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[occam]

One I can manage. This one. For two, you'll have to ask Jan.

> Infinities are dubious things to juggle with.
>

Infinitely dubious, when it comes to universes.

[J. J. Lodder]

How do you know its only one?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Too bad, so you are still not there after all.
It isn't about real universes,
it is -an interpretation- of standard quantum mchanics,
it is not a different theory.

> Infinities are dubious things to juggle with.

All of quantum electrodynamics is juggling with infinities.
If juggled right they agree with experiment to 9 significant digits,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

Perhaps there is one of these infinite number of parallel universes in
which infinity = 1.

--
Sam Plusnet

[bozo de niro]

This is redundant but I didn't know where to put it

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200117-what-if-the-universe-has-no-end

What was that "stuff" before matter in the billionth-billionth of a ú-second of the big-bang?

Why don't "they" call them quarks?

[occam]

How do YOU know its infinite? I'll give you (betting) odds of
1:infinite that it isn't. (I hope that those odds are the correct way
around. )

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course I know, because it is my interpretation.
(that is, I have made it that, for the sake of the argument)

You still have not understood the point.
It is ---an interpretation---, and nothing but an interpretation.
Reality, and real infinities have nothing to do with it.

All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)
has to say about it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.
All else, such as other worlds in which the outcome is different
exist in your imagination only.

And yes, you can invent as many as you want, just like gods,

Jan

[occam]

Yes, thank you. I am presently working my way through the MWI paper by
Howard Barnum (Los Alamos National Laboratory).

If we agree that MWI is an interpretation, then why your (earlier)
objection to my statement, that it was a conjecture? What is the
difference? They are both products of the imagination.

[I am a great fan of thought experiments, especially if they take me to
new place. So far, MWI in not such a place.]

[Peter Moylan]

For what it's worth, here is my take on it. I am not a physicist, but I
have some interest in the philosophy of science.

A theory is called "correct" if its predictions agree with every
possible experiment. (Of course we can't do every possible experiment,
but we can still say "correct so far", with increasing confidence as
more checks are done.) A corollary of this definition is that two or
more different theories can be equally correct if they predict the same
measurable results. They might be very different theories, but their
differences lie in things that cannot be measured.

Given multiple equivalent theories, we have a natural tendency to pick
the one that is simpler or more elegant. That doesn't make the rejected
theories wrong, though; just unpopular. And, anyway, it's possible for
competing theories to be almost equally elegant.

Now, how does this apply to MWI? One thing we are quite sure of is that
the only things we can measure are those in the one universe that we
inhabit. If alternative universes exist, they are unobservable. That
means that assertions about their existence can be neither "right" nor
"wrong". Believing in them is not a matter of "truth", whatever that may
be, but a matter of taste. People who support the MWI do so because, in
their view, it's a simple and elegant way of looking at phenomena that
are probabilistic rather than deterministic.

[Jerry Friedman]

Why do you say that? According to the Wikipedia article, Everett (the inventor
of the theory, for those following at home) believed the other universes were
real. The article quotes David Deutsch, possibly its strongest current
proponent, as saying that calling Many Worlds an interpretation of quantum
mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of fossil
records."

> All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)
> has to say about it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.
> All else, such as other worlds in which the outcome is different
> exist in your imagination only.

...

Deutsch and others have proposed experiments to test Many Worlds. They're
not possible with current technology, since they require macroscopic objects in
a coherent superposition state, but from what I saw at Wikipedia, the idea
doesn't sound impossible. (On the other hand, Deutsch has also proposed using
a conscious reversible computer to rule out the "naive" Copenhagen
interpretation. Someone might build a reversible computer some day, but I don't
know how you measure whether it's conscious.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

I'm not so sure of that. Maybe someone just hasn't come up with the right
idea yet. Also, as I mentioned to Jan, supporters of the MWI have proposed
experiments to test it, at some point in the future.

> That
> means that assertions about their existence can be neither "right" nor
> "wrong". Believing in them is not a matter of "truth", whatever that may
> be, but a matter of taste. People who support the MWI do so because, in
> their view, it's a simple and elegant way of looking at phenomena that
> are probabilistic rather than deterministic.

The problem isn't just that phenomena are probabilistic. It's that the
wavefunction of a system after measurement is quite different from
that before measurement, but quantum mechanics includes a description
of how wavefunctions change in time that doesn't provide an obvious
for that change to happen. If I have that right. Of course, there are other
approaches to the problem.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:09:24 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> For what it's worth, here is my take on it. I am not a physicist, but I
> have some interest in the philosophy of science.
>
> A theory is called "correct" if its predictions agree with every
> possible experiment. (Of course we can't do every possible experiment,
> but we can still say "correct so far", with increasing confidence as
> more checks are done.) A corollary of this definition is that two or
> more different theories can be equally correct if they predict the same
> measurable results. They might be very different theories, but their
> differences lie in things that cannot be measured.
>
> Given multiple equivalent theories, we have a natural tendency to pick
> the one that is simpler or more elegant. That doesn't make the rejected
> theories wrong, though; just unpopular. And, anyway, it's possible for
> competing theories to be almost equally elegant.
>
> Now, how does this apply to MWI? One thing we are quite sure of is that
> the only things we can measure are those in the one universe that we
> inhabit. If alternative universes exist, they are unobservable. That
> means that assertions about their existence can be neither "right" nor
> "wrong". Believing in them is not a matter of "truth", whatever that may
> be, but a matter of taste.

Ah -- a way of avoiding the word "faith." But in a message I read a few
minutes ago, you suggested that physics and atheism can both be
regarded as religion, and now I see why.

[bruce bowser]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 2:05:11 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:

> Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :
> >
> > What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? [...]
>
> Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)

Bible. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
(Our is plural)
[Et Dieu créa l'homme à son image; il le créa à l'image de Dieu
(Notre est pluriel)]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:28:31 AM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 2:05:11 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 30/05/2023 à 04:29, bozo de niro a écrit :

> > > What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? [...]
> > Isn't that God? (If only He had an e-mail address, we could ask Him.)
>
> Bible. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
> (Our is plural)

The proper name Elohim is grammatically plural.

(The singular elo(a)h is not used.)

[Peter Moylan]

No, I didn't suggest that. I suggested that some people might take that
attitude. There are people around who insist that any belief system is a
religion. Creationists, in particular, continue to insist that what
science has discovered about how the world works is "only a theory".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Except for the "only," that's correct.

[Peter Moylan]

Yes, except that creationists and scientists use the word "theory"
differently. In science, something doesn't get called a theory until
there's solid evidence for it; it's been well tested. To the cranks,
"theory" means a guess. A big difference.

[Thomas Joseph]

bozo de niro wrote:

> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?


Nah, we're just a bunch of germs that die and come back over and
over again as different germs. We are just intelligent enough to question
why we're here, as if there must be a purpose. Because we are
intelligent enough to question our existence we sometimes go too
far with it, thinking our existence is planned or regulated in some way
which means we have some degree of control, which I suppose we do
in the way we have senses of humor to help us through dark moments
and other diversions created over time to help us forget that we are
nothing but need machines saddled from birth with the annoying will
to live. God dammit.

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <86a12530-70c2-47c9-b466-31bd7f41589fn @googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:43:25 -0700 (PDT):

>> Bible. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image,
>> after our likeness"
>> (Our is plural)
>
> The proper name Elohim is grammatically plural.
>
> (The singular elo(a)h is not used.)

I don;t know the language at all but this doesn't agree with what I've
read.

Eloah f. Elah does occur in the bible, it is unusual and the usage
pattern may be for theological rather than grammatical reasons. (Job
uses it, which may indicate an Arabic-poetry association)

Elohim may be "gramatically plural" but it is occurs with both singular
and plural verbs and adjectives. The context should be used to
determine if it means God or "other gods" or "human judges"

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 3:06:39?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >
> > > On 01/06/2023 20:32, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 01/06/2023 10:43, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > >>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:57:58 +0200
> > > >>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

[-]

> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You've got it. All that is possible, by the laws of physics,
> > > >>>> actually exists, in infinitely many parallel universes even.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Just show me *one* parallel universe, OK?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> One I can manage. This one. For two, you'll have to ask Jan.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know its only one?
> > > >
> > >
> > > How do YOU know its infinite? I'll give you (betting) odds of
> > > 1:infinite that it isn't. (I hope that those odds are the correct way
> > > around. )
> > Of course I know, because it is my interpretation.
> > (that is, I have made it that, for the sake of the argument)
> >
> > You still have not understood the point.
> > It is ---an interpretation---, and nothing but an interpretation.
> > Reality, and real infinities have nothing to do with it.
>
> Why do you say that? According to the Wikipedia article, Everett (the
> inventor of the theory, for those following at home) believed the other
> universes were real.

Believing them real doesn't make them real.
What is needed for that is showing that standard quantum mechanics
is not empirically adequate.
I've see no convincing argument for that.
Apart from that, MWI has conceptual problems of its own.
(such as the prefered base problem)

> The article quotes David Deutsch, possibly its strongest current
> proponent, as saying that calling Many Worlds an interpretation of quantum
> mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of
> fossil records."

This is disingeneous I think. What is an 'interpretation'?
Evolution is an historical theory. Most historians will agree
(I think) that what they are doing is interpreting the past.
That's why every generaton has to do it again, in its own way.
That doesn't imply that you start doubting
that for example Napoleon, or a T. rex existed.

All that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
I see Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda.

> > All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)
> > has to say about it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.
> > All else, such as other worlds in which the outcome is different
> > exist in your imagination only.
> ...
>
> Deutsch and others have proposed experiments to test Many Worlds. They're
> not possible with current technology, since they require macroscopic
> objects in a coherent superposition state, but from what I saw at
> Wikipedia, the idea doesn't sound impossible. (On the other hand, Deutsch
> has also proposed using a conscious reversible computer to rule out the
> "naive" Copenhagen interpretation. Someone might build a reversible
> computer some day, but I don't know how you measure whether it's
> conscious.)

A typical example of a 'degenerating research program'
in the sense of Imre Lakatos, if you want my opinion.
All it is busy with are problems generated by the program itself,

Jan

[occam]

(OT: Have you tried saying that to Christians, about God?)

> What is needed for that is showing that standard quantum mechanics
> is not empirically adequate.> I've see no convincing argument for that.

Einstein apparently did.

"Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic
level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of
physics." He thought that describing reality required firm predictions
followed by direct observations. But individual quantum interactions
cannot be observed directly, leaving quantum physicists no choice but to
predict the probability that events will occur. "

On (of many) sources:
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory

[Jerry Friedman]

Certainly. But you were saying that the MWI doesn't include the idea
that the other universes are real. It does include that idea, for its
inventor and best-known current proponent and possibly others, though
maybe not for the majority of physicists who accept it.

> What is needed for that is showing that standard quantum mechanics
> is not empirically adequate.
> I've see no convincing argument for that.

Neither have I, but you said above that the MWI is only an interpretation
and reality (of other universes) has nothing to do with it. Now you seem
to be saying that if there were evidence that standard QM is inadequate
(and the MWI could explain that evidence), there would be a reason not
only to accept the MWI but to believe the other universes are real. I'm
having trouble fitting those together.

> Apart from that, MWI has conceptual problems of its own.
> (such as the prefered base problem)

OK.

> > The article quotes David Deutsch, possibly its strongest current
> > proponent, as saying that calling Many Worlds an interpretation of quantum
> > mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of
> > fossil records."

> This is disingeneous I think. What is an 'interpretation'?

You don't think Deutsch meant what he said?

> Evolution is an historical theory. Most historians will agree
> (I think) that what they are doing is interpreting the past.
> That's why every generaton has to do it again, in its own way.
> That doesn't imply that you start doubting
> that for example Napoleon, or a T. rex existed.
>
> All that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
> I see Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda.

I brought it up to illustrate what he believes.

ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a typo,
but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the practice of using a
bare apostrophe for the possessive after any letter but s.

> > > All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)
> > > has to say about it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.
> > > All else, such as other worlds in which the outcome is different
> > > exist in your imagination only.
> > ...
> >
> > Deutsch and others have proposed experiments to test Many Worlds. They're
> > not possible with current technology, since they require macroscopic
> > objects in a coherent superposition state, but from what I saw at
> > Wikipedia, the idea doesn't sound impossible. (On the other hand, Deutsch
> > has also proposed using a conscious reversible computer to rule out the
> > "naive" Copenhagen interpretation. Someone might build a reversible
> > computer some day, but I don't know how you measure whether it's
> > conscious.)

> A typical example of a 'degenerating research program'
> in the sense of Imre Lakatos, if you want my opinion.
> All it is busy with are problems generated by the program itself,

On the contrary, some MWI supporters have proposed experiments to test
their ideas. That's exactly what theorists should do. The proposal with a
conscious computer doesn't look like a valid test to me, at least as Wikip
describes it, and I don't know whether their other tests are valid. But they
have been busy with the right problems.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

My dislike goes further than that: the practice of using a bare
apostrophe for the possessive after any letter, including s.

>
>>>> All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)> > > has to say about
>>>> it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.> > > All else, such as other
>>>> worlds in which the outcome is different> > > exist in your imagination
>>>> only.> > ...> >> > Deutsch and others have proposed experiments to test
>>>> Many Worlds. They're> > not possible with current technology, since
>>>> they require macroscopic> > objects in a coherent superposition state,
>>>> but from what I saw at> > Wikipedia, the idea doesn't sound impossible.
>>>> (On the other hand, Deutsch> > has also proposed using a conscious
>>>> reversible computer to rule out the> > "naive" Copenhagen
>>>> interpretation. Someone might build a reversible> > computer some day,
>>>> but I don't know how you measure whether it's> > conscious.)
>
>> A typical example of a 'degenerating research program'> in the sense of
>> Imre Lakatos, if you want my opinion.> All it is busy with are problems
>> generated by the program itself,
> On the contrary, some MWI supporters have proposed experiments to test
> their ideas. That's exactly what theorists should do. The proposal with a
> conscious computer doesn't look like a valid test to me, at least as Wikip
> describes it, and I don't know whether their other tests are valid. But they
> have been busy with the right problems.


--

athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 7:48:36 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-06-04 13:28:20 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>
> > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 2:48:28 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:

...

> >> I see
> >> Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda.

...

> > ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a typo,
> > but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the practice
> > of using a
> > bare apostrophe for the possessive after any letter but s.

> My dislike goes further than that: the practice of using a bare
> apostrophe for the possessive after any letter, including s.

...

Even after plurals?

--
Jerry Friedman

[occam]

On 04/06/2023 15:48, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-06-04 13:28:20 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>

>>
>> ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a
>> typo,
>> but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the practice
>> of using a
>> bare apostrophe for the possessive after any letter but s.
>
> My dislike goes further than that: the practice of using a bare
> apostrophe for the possessive after any letter, including s.

'ow 'bout apostrophes before letters, go'vner? (I'm quite partial to those.)


>
>

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I spoke too soon: after plurals it's OK. What annoy me, though, are
phrases like "Jesus' sermon on the mount".

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Saying so is one thing, giving it 'hands and feet' is another.
If there is anything anywhere in the writings of Everittt, DeWitt,
and others That would make those // universes observable,
I have missed it. (perhaps you saw that somewhere in their writings?)
What I saw was 'perhaps, maybe, someone may think of a way'
right from the beginning.

> > What is needed for that is showing that standard quantum mechanics
> > is not empirically adequate.
> > I've see no convincing argument for that.
>
> Neither have I, but you said above that the MWI is only an interpretation
> and reality (of other universes) has nothing to do with it. Now you seem
> to be saying that if there were evidence that standard QM is inadequate
> (and the MWI could explain that evidence), there would be a reason not
> only to accept the MWI but to believe the other universes are real. I'm
> having trouble fitting those together.

No problem, MWI is just that, and only that, an interpretation,

and nothing but an interpretation.

> > Apart from that, MWI has conceptual problems of its own.
> > (such as the prefered base problem)
>
> OK.
>
> > > The article quotes David Deutsch, possibly its strongest current
> > > proponent, as saying that calling Many Worlds an interpretation of quantum
> > > mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of
> > > fossil records."
>
> > This is disingeneous I think. What is an 'interpretation'?
>
> You don't think Deutsch meant what he said?

What's meaning in this? Its just propaganda.

> > Evolution is an historical theory. Most historians will agree
> > (I think) that what they are doing is interpreting the past.
> > That's why every generaton has to do it again, in its own way.
> > That doesn't imply that you start doubting
> > that for example Napoleon, or a T. rex existed.
> >
> > All that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
> > I see Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda.
>
> I brought it up to illustrate what he believes.

'Believes' is the word, I think.
Belief is not physics.

> ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a typo,
> but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the practice of

> busin a are apostrophe for the possessive after any letter but s.

I'm open to better suggestions.

> > > > All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)
> > > > has to say about it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.
> > > > All else, such as other worlds in which the outcome is different
> > > > exist in your imagination only.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Deutsch and others have proposed experiments to test Many Worlds. They're
> > > not possible with current technology, since they require macroscopic
> > > objects in a coherent superposition state, but from what I saw at
> > > Wikipedia, the idea doesn't sound impossible. (On the other hand, Deutsch
> > > has also proposed using a conscious reversible computer to rule out the
> > > "naive" Copenhagen interpretation. Someone might build a reversible
> > > computer some day, but I don't know how you measure whether it's
> > > conscious.)
>
> > A typical example of a 'degenerating research program'
> > in the sense of Imre Lakatos, if you want my opinion.
> > All it is busy with are problems generated by the program itself,
>
> On the contrary, some MWI supporters have proposed experiments to test
> their ideas.

Really?

> That's exactly what theorists should do. The proposal with a
> conscious computer doesn't look like a valid test to me, at least as Wikip
> describes it, and I don't know whether their other tests are valid. But they
> have been busy with the right problems.

I will let them have their fun, and start paying attention
when it becomes serious,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-06-04 13:53:00 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>

> > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 7:48:36?AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-06-04 13:28:20 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:>> > On Sunday, June

> >> 4, 2023 at 2:48:28?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:...

> >
> >>>> I see> >> Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda....
> >>> ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a
> >>> typo,> > but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the
> >>> practice> > of using a> > bare apostrophe for the possessive after any
> >>> letter but s.
> >
> >> My dislike goes further than that: the practice of using a bare>
> >> apostrophe for the possessive after any letter, including s.
> > ...
> >
> > Even after plurals?
>
> I spoke too soon: after plurals it's OK. What annoy me, though, are
> phrases like "Jesus' sermon on the mount".

What would your prefered form be?
(a rewrite of the sentence, or just omitting it?)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-06-04 13:28:20 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

[-]

> > ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a typo,
> > but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the practice
> > of using a
> > bare apostrophe for the possessive after any letter but s.
>
> My dislike goes further than that: the practice of using a bare
> apostrophe for the possessive after any letter, including s.

But Deutsch does end with an s , apart from trivialities of fossilised
foreign spellings, [1]

Jan

[1] Compare Dutch, where some spelling reform did away with most of
those ...sch endings, replacing them by just ...s,
with no loss. (like 'wensch' -> wens')
Its just that Germans are more conservative.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Jesus's

> (a rewrite of the sentence, or just omitting it?)
>
> Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

German spelling reforms have nothing to do with the spelling of English
suffixes. That applies especially to reforms that haven't happened.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

That might be a recent development?

Here's evidence of the use of the word of a theory long before it had
been widely accepted

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+theory+of+evolution+%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

(The huge -- and never-equaled -- peak in 1873 is surprising.

Do you admit the interjection "in theory" when someone is describing
something they're imagining might be the case?

Like, "El Greco had astigmatism." "In theory. That could explain the
'distortions' in his pictures."

> To the cranks,
> "theory" means a guess. A big difference.

Putting "only" in front of it is the signal of that.

[Silvano]

J. J. Lodder hat am 04.06.2023 um 18:33 geschrieben:

> But Deutsch does end with an s ,

In which language? Not in German, where the final sound in Deutsch
(which means "German" in German, as many AUE readers know) is the same
as in the English "match".

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 18:52:18 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-06-04 16:33:23 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-06-04 13:53:00 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 7:48:36?AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-06-04 13:28:20 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:>> > On Sunday, June
>>>>> 4, 2023 at 2:48:28?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:...
>>>>
>>>>>>> I see> >> Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda....
>>>>>> ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a
>>>>>> typo,> > but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the
>>>>>> practice> > of using a> > bare apostrophe for the possessive after any
>>>>>> letter but s.
>>>>
>>>>> My dislike goes further than that: the practice of using a bare>
>>>>> apostrophe for the possessive after any letter, including s.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Even after plurals?
>>>
>>> I spoke too soon: after plurals it's OK. What annoy me, though, are
>>> phrases like "Jesus' sermon on the mount".
>>
>> What would your prefered form be?
>
>Jesus's

Mine too.

[Peter Moylan]

Darwin's controversial book was published in 1859. It could well take
more than a decade before responses in books peaked. There was probably
a big response before that in print sources - e.g. newspapers and
magazines, and possibly handbills - that Google Books doesn't cover.

What we don't know is whether the phrase was used mostly by supporters
or opponents of the theory. The scientific community, as far as I know,
did consider Darwin's evidence to be good, but they probably used more
guarded terms like "proposed theory". But religious opposition to the
theory was very strong at the time, and might have contributed a lot to
that peak.

> Do you admit the interjection "in theory" when someone is describing
> something they're imagining might be the case?
>
> Like, "El Greco had astigmatism." "In theory. That could explain the
> 'distortions' in his pictures."

I wouldn't use the word "imagining" in connection with "in theory". I'd
say most uses of "in theory" fall into two classes.
(a) This could well be true, but we don't have the evidence one way or
the other;
(b) This _should_ work, but some unknown factor is messing up the result.

Still, I suppose that everyone accepts that the difference between
theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory.

[Peter Moylan]

Not knowing anything about the person, I initially assumed that Jan was
referring to someone who doesn't pronounce his name the German way.
Googling doesn't support that guess, though.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The phrase actually occurs in it several times.

> more than a decade before responses in books peaked. There was probably
> a big response before that in print sources - e.g. newspapers and
> magazines, and possibly handbills - that Google Books doesn't cover.

I've had considerable luck in GB with the literary magazines of that era
where the intelligentsia talked with each other -- the Athenaeum, for
instance. I had been using the huge crumbling bound volumes in the
Columbia library. Now they've probably been banished to "off-site,"
but fortunately they've been digitized. Also the Dublin Magazine, and
various things called "Review."

> What we don't know is whether the phrase was used mostly by supporters
> or opponents of the theory.

There are certainly enough histories of the controversy that have enojgh
quotes to make that clear!

> The scientific community, as far as I know,
> did consider Darwin's evidence to be good, but they probably used more
> guarded terms like "proposed theory". But religious opposition to the
> theory was very strong at the time, and might have contributed a lot to
> that peak.

"Religious" authorities were quite divided. It was also the period when
biblical criticism waw being developed, mostly in Germany.

> > Do you admit the interjection "in theory" when someone is describing
> > something they're imagining might be the case?
> > Like, "El Greco had astigmatism." "In theory. That could explain the
> > 'distortions' in his pictures."
>
> I wouldn't use the word "imagining" in connection with "in theory". I'd
> say most uses of "in theory" fall into two classes.
> (a) This could well be true, but we don't have the evidence one way or
> the other;
> (b) This _should_ work, but some unknown factor is messing up the result.
>
> Still, I suppose that everyone accepts that the difference between
> theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory.

:-)

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:37:57 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/06/23 03:24, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 7:56:40?PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 04/06/23 01:18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 7:28:45?PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> On 03/06/23 00:48, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>>>> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:09:24?AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan

When the smoothing is set to 0, the big peak shows as 1875.

What I recall reading from an article in "Science" is that Darwin
had won practically universal acceptance among peers by 1875.

I wondered if there was some big publication in 1875 so I looked
at the books for the citations. What I see there is that 5 of
the first page of citations, from /different sources/, all in 1875,
give exactly these words --
"Yet , it may be justly expected that we refer to the modern theory
of evolution based as it is upon this theory of forces . We admit an
evolution originated by a divine Creator , guided by a divine
intelligence , and governed by a ..."

One is
Documents of the Senate of the State of New York

An extra sentence is interjected in the same quote in
The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review - Page 399

>
>Darwin's controversial book was published in 1859. It could well take
>more than a decade before responses in books peaked. There was probably
>a big response before that in print sources - e.g. newspapers and
>magazines, and possibly handbills - that Google Books doesn't cover.
>
>What we don't know is whether the phrase was used mostly by supporters
>or opponents of the theory. The scientific community, as far as I know,
>did consider Darwin's evidence to be good, but they probably used more
>guarded terms like "proposed theory". But religious opposition to the
>theory was very strong at the time, and might have contributed a lot to
>that peak.
>

...

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 12:15:10 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:37:57 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >On 05/06/23 03:24, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> Here's evidence of the use of the word of a theory long before it had
> >> been widely accepted
> >>
> >> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22+theory+of+evolution+%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> >>
> >>(The huge -- and never-equaled -- peak in 1873 is surprising.
>
> When the smoothing is set to 0, the big peak shows as 1875.

I wonder what "smoothing" does. When I ran the little dot along the line,
the year that had the most hits was 1873.

GB can have multiple copies of a title, contributed by different libraries.
This can be useful -- almost all of them never unfold the plates (making
the scan useless in many cases), while one copy might show the plates
but have some other deficiency.

[Thomas Joseph]

bozo de niro wrote:

> What if we and the rest of humanity are all an elaborate and expensive experiment, and the "experimenter" is watching us and how we react? Does it really matter if THEY really are in fact aliens or not or even "just" domestic artificial intelligence? It makes you think if you have a foreign-speaking domestic in your place doing scut housework at less than minimum wage they might have a front row seat to more than just the skid marks on your tighty-whities 🙃🤣 ehhh?

It's all pretty egotistical if you ask me, or even if you don't.
I'm talking about the old "Why we're here?" routine which
is an interesting diversion employed it seems by only
humans. We are just smart enough to ask why we're so
dumb. Followed by, "Where do we go from here?", and
other questions related to our existence. I understand. I
am a human too and have done the same. But I know it's
pure egotism. Whether being gawked at by alien experimenters
or the only living thing in the world and everything and everyone
else is just a dream - who hasn't gone through the gamut of
questions spurred by human egotism. Is there anything wrong
with egotism? I suppose not.

Some people are so afraid of death they want to live forever
and they don't care if it's as a germ in a petri dish or the ruler
of the universe. They just want to keep breathing, a hard
habit to break.

[Thomas Joseph]

bozo de niro wrote:

> What was that "stuff" before matter in the billionth-billionth of a ú-second of the big-bang?
>
> Why don't "they" call them quarks?


TMQ. Too Many Questions. All the time with the questions, this
Bozo guy. He wants answers but accepts none. This is Bozo's
tricky way of looking like the author of the project when in reality
his responders do all the work. He knows this. That's why he
posts questions. Not always, but a lot of the time. It's very
dictatorial, like, "Ok gang, let me tell you what we're going to do,
we're going to charge up that hill and take it no matter how many
bullets come our way. Are you ready? Ok. Go!" That's what
Bozo's questions remind me of - sort of like Bud Abbot as a
boxing manager and Lou Costello as his fighter and Costello
is getting pummeled from post to post including even in his
own corner where Abbot is screaming, "Come on, punch - he's
nothing - I'm telling you he's getting tired - I can see it - come on,
do something!" That's the way Bozo is with his questions, hoping
the responses will be good enough to get into his new book, "These
Are The Questions I ask", due to hit the shelves late summer.

[Jerry Friedman]

The subject was saying, not "hands and feet". The MWI is, or can be,
the claim that all those universes are real, contrary to what you said
above--but agreeing with what you said earlier. "You've got it. All that

is possible, by the laws of physics, actually exists, in infinitely many
parallel universes even."

> If there is anything anywhere in the writings of Everittt, DeWitt,
> and others That would make those // universes observable,
> I have missed it. (perhaps you saw that somewhere in their writings?)
> What I saw was 'perhaps, maybe, someone may think of a way'
> right from the beginning.

You changed "real" to "observable". What Everett and others said and say
is that those universes are real, not that they're observable. Whether
that's true, whether it has any justfication, whether it's physics--those
are irrelevant to the fact that they say it, so it's part of the MWI, maybe
an optional part.

In case you're wondering, I haven't read Everett or DeWitt or those others.

> > > What is needed for that is showing that standard quantum mechanics
> > > is not empirically adequate.

> > > I've see no convincing argument for that.
> >
> > Neither have I, but you said above that the MWI is only an interpretation
> > and reality (of other universes) has nothing to do with it. Now you seem
> > to be saying that if there were evidence that standard QM is inadequate
> > (and the MWI could explain that evidence), there would be a reason not
> > only to accept the MWI but to believe the other universes are real. I'm
> > having trouble fitting those together.

> No problem, MWI is just that, and only that, an interpretation,
> and nothing but an interpretation.

Picking one side of the contradiction doesn't help.

> > > Apart from that, MWI has conceptual problems of its own.
> > > (such as the prefered base problem)
> >
> > OK.

It seems the preferred-basis problem was solved decades ago by decoherence...
maybe.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12408/1/Everett%20introduction%20arXiv.pdf

(You may also be interested to see that the article uses the pejorative phrase
"Dutch book".)

> > > > The article quotes David Deutsch, possibly its strongest current
> > > > proponent, as saying that calling Many Worlds an interpretation of quantum
> > > > mechanics "is like talking about dinosaurs as an 'interpretation' of
> > > > fossil records."
> >
> > > This is disingeneous I think. What is an 'interpretation'?
> >
> > You don't think Deutsch meant what he said?

> What's meaning in this? Its just propaganda.

The meaning is that he thinks MWI is as well established as the existence of
(non-avian) dinosaurs. What's the problem? And "propaganda" is not the
opposite of "meaning". Propaganda usually means something, often something
false. Do you think Deutsch's statement about his opinion is false? Could you
possibly be saying that the quotation from Deutsch is propaganda because,
as extracted, it doesn't provide his arguments? If not, what do you mean?

> > > Evolution is an historical theory. Most historians will agree
> > > (I think) that what they are doing is interpreting the past.
> > > That's why every generaton has to do it again, in its own way.
> > > That doesn't imply that you start doubting
> > > that for example Napoleon, or a T. rex existed.
> > >
> > > All that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
> > > I see Deutsch' statement on this as mere propaganda.
> >
> > I brought it up to illustrate what he believes.

> 'Believes' is the word, I think.
> Belief is not physics.

Here's Deutsch on belief, the reality of other universe, and science:

'Horgan: Do you really, truly, believe in existence of other universes, as
implied by the many-worlds hypothesis?'

'Deutsch: It's my opinion that the state of the arguments, and evidence,
about other universes closely parallels that about dinosaurs. Namely:
they're real – get over it.

'But I think that belief is an irrational state of mind and I try to avoid it.
As Popper said: “I am opposed to the thesis that the scientist must believe
in his theory. As far as I am concerned ‘I do not believe in belief,’ as E. M.
Forster says; and I especially do not believe in belief in science.”
(Actually Forster's view was much more equivocal than Popper's on this.)'

Again the interview doesn't give his "arguments, and evidence", which I'm
having a bit of trouble finding.

> > ObApostrophes: I'm hoping your omission of the s after Deutsch' was a typo,
> > but I'm taking this opportunity to mention my dislike of the practice of
> > busin a are apostrophe for the possessive after any letter but s.
>
> I'm open to better suggestions.

"Deutsch's" is the only correct spelling--I believe.

> > > > > All the real science (that is quantum mechanics)
> > > > > has to say about it is: 50% chance that the cat is alive.
> > > > > All else, such as other worlds in which the outcome is different
> > > > > exist in your imagination only.
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Deutsch and others have proposed experiments to test Many Worlds. They're
> > > > not possible with current technology, since they require macroscopic
> > > > objects in a coherent superposition state, but from what I saw at
> > > > Wikipedia, the idea doesn't sound impossible. (On the other hand, Deutsch
> > > > has also proposed using a conscious reversible computer to rule out the
> > > > "naive" Copenhagen interpretation. Someone might build a reversible
> > > > computer some day, but I don't know how you measure whether it's
> > > > conscious.)
> >
> > > A typical example of a 'degenerating research program'
> > > in the sense of Imre Lakatos, if you want my opinion.
> > > All it is busy with are problems generated by the program itself,
> >
> > On the contrary, some MWI supporters have proposed experiments to test
> > their ideas.

> Really?

Sorry, I said it again because I thought you might not have noticed it the first
time. See

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#TestMWI

The proposed experiments are not attempts to observe other universes but
attempts to confirm or refute wavefunction collapse.

To quote Lev Vaidman in the Stanford article, "These proposals are all for
gedanken experiments that cannot be performed with current or any
foreseeable future technology. Indeed, in these experiments an interference
of different worlds has to be observed. Worlds are different when at least
one macroscopic object is in macroscopically distinguishable states. Thus,
what is needed is an interference experiment with a macroscopic body."

> > That's exactly what theorists should do. The proposal with a
> > conscious computer doesn't look like a valid test to me, at least as Wikip
> > describes it, and I don't know whether their other tests are valid. But they
> > have been busy with the right problems.

> I will let them have their fun, and start paying attention
> when it becomes serious,

If "it becomes serious" means "they have experimental evidence", I agree
with you.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:58:13 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

>.What Everett and others said and say

> is that those universes are real, not that they're observable. Whether
> that's true, whether it has any justfication, whether it's physics--those
> are irrelevant to the fact that they say it, so it's part of the MWI, maybe
> an optional part.

A useful distinction that the atheists might keep in mind. I see from the
quote you included that Deutsch said essentially the same thing.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-6, Jerry Friedman wrote:

[The Garden of Forking Paths]

> Here's Deutsch on belief, the reality of other universe

s

>, and science:
>
> 'Horgan: Do you really, truly, believe in existence of other universes, as
> implied by the many-worlds hypothesis?'
>
> 'Deutsch: It's my opinion that the state of the arguments, and evidence,
> about other universes closely parallels that about dinosaurs. Namely:
> they're real – get over it.
>
> 'But I think that belief is an irrational state of mind and I try to avoid it.
> As Popper said: “I am opposed to the thesis that the scientist must believe
> in his theory. As far as I am concerned ‘I do not believe in belief,’ as E. M.
> Forster says; and I especially do not believe in belief in science.”
> (Actually Forster's view was much more equivocal than Popper's on this.)'

...

Too bad he passed up "I believe that belief is an irrational state of mind and

I try to avoid it."

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

If somebody asserts that "gods exist, but they are not observable", I
would not call that person an atheist.

On the broader question, my own views on observability have been greatly
influenced by systems theory, where questions around observable and
unobservable states have been explored (and mostly resolved) in great
detail. That makes my views on such matters so greatly divergent from
the views of physicists that discussion would be pointless.

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/06/23 00:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:58:13?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >
> >> .What Everett and others said and say is that those universes are
> >> real, not that they're observable. Whether that's true, whether it
> >> has any justfication, whether it's physics--those are irrelevant to
> >> the fact that they say it, so it's part of the MWI, maybe an
> >> optional part.
> >
> > A useful distinction that the atheists might keep in mind. I see from
> > the quote you included that Deutsch said essentially the same thing.
>
> If somebody asserts that "gods exist, but they are not observable", I
> would not call that person an atheist.

No, that is a silly theist.

> On the broader question, my own views on observability have been greatly
> influenced by systems theory, where questions around observable and
> unobservable states have been explored (and mostly resolved) in great
> detail. That makes my views on such matters so greatly divergent from
> the views of physicists that discussion would be pointless.

Doesn't sound good,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 11:08:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/06/23 00:20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:58:13 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> >> .What Everett and others said and say is that those universes are
> >> real, not that they're observable. Whether that's true, whether it
> >> has any justfication, whether it's physics--those are irrelevant to
> >> the fact that they say it, so it's part of the MWI, maybe an
> >> optional part.
> > A useful distinction that the atheists might keep in mind. I see from
> > the quote you included that Deutsch said essentially the same thing.
>
> If somebody asserts that "gods exist, but they are not observable", I
> would not call that person an atheist.

Of course.

If an atheist says they cannot observe gods, that does not mean gods
don't exist.

[Thomas Joseph]

Daniels wrote:

> If an atheist says they cannot observe gods, that does not
> mean gods don't exist.

If a person cannot smell shit, that does not mean shit
doesn't exist.

[Peter Moylan]

If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 1:42:52 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/06/23 10:26, Thomas Joseph wrote:
> > Daniels wrote:

> >> If an atheist says they cannot observe gods, that does not mean
> >> gods don't exist.
> > If a person cannot smell shit, that does not mean shit doesn't
> > exist.
>
> If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
> observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.

Just as much as those MWI's you've been talking about the
last few days. But that hasn't stopped y'all from speculating
about them!

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:42:37 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 08/06/23 10:26, Thomas Joseph wrote:
>> Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> If an atheist says they cannot observe gods, that does not mean
>>> gods don't exist.
>>
>> If a person cannot smell shit, that does not mean shit doesn't
>> exist.
>
>If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
>observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.

Check my cats' litter box. It's relevant.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 11:42:52 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/06/23 10:26, Thomas Joseph wrote:
> > Daniels wrote:
> >
> >> If an atheist says they cannot observe gods, that does not mean
> >> gods don't exist.
> >
> > If a person cannot smell shit, that does not mean shit doesn't
> > exist.
> If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
> observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.

However, as I mentioned to Jan, supporters of the MWI say that
experiments (not feasible in the foreseeable future) could test it, in
which case maybe it is a bit relevant and maybe it's more a T than
an I.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

On 08-Jun-23 6:42, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/06/23 10:26, Thomas Joseph wrote:
>> Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> If an atheist says they cannot observe gods, that does not mean
>>> gods don't exist.
>>
>> If a person cannot smell shit, that does not mean shit doesn't
>> exist.
>
> If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
> observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.

Are parallel universes akin to Usenet groups where cross-posting is not
allowed?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Moylan]

You've just made me realise where Bruce Bowser and Bozo and Hen Hanna et
al are living.

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter Moylan wrote:

> If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
> observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.

Makes sense. Non-reachable and unobservable alien
turds are irrelevant to us now. But what if a shit storm
of alien turds arrived tomorrow? I'm not into discussing
alien shit anyway. I'm an earth shit guy.

[Thomas Joseph]

Mack A. Damia wrote:
Peter Moylan

> >If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
> >observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.


> Check my cats' litter box. It's relevant.

It is relevant and becomes even more so with each passing
day. I used to clean the box out and dump it down the toilet.
I was careful, just a little bit at a time. I like cats but I
developed an allergy. As for their shit, I'll bet if cats were
not instantly house trained there would be a lot less of them
sharing human households.

[Thomas Joseph]

Sam Plusnet wrote:

Peter Moylan wrote:


> > If the shit is in a parallel universe, that is neither reachable nor
> > observable from our world, its existence is irrelevant to us.



> Are parallel universes akin to Usenet groups where cross-posting is not
> allowed?

What is cross-posting?

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter Moylan wrote:

> You've just made me realise where Bruce Bowser and Bozo and Hen Hanna et
> al are living.

At first I thought you were saying made you realize
that they are living. That they are actual human beings.
Same with me, I'm a human too. I admit it, I sometimes
don't look on other people as humans or even living
things. I am a selfish person that way. But I admit it.
That makes it ok. "Et al" - ok you got all bases covered.
Good.

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course. There is also a // universe in which you cross-posted this.

A universe for everything, for everything a universe.

What we DO lose is living in the best of all possible ones,

Jan

[Snidely]

Thomas Joseph pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

Plenty of us are cross when a post from another group crosses a
boundary.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[Thomas Joseph]

Thomas Joseph politely asked:
Snidely politely responded:

> What is cross-posting?


> Plenty of us are cross when a post from another group crosses a
> boundary.

Aha. I assumed cross posting was always intentional. You're
saying that merely responding to the wrong person, even by
inadvertently keeping their moniker in the mix somehow, is
crossposting? I don't post from other groups. I am not an
invader. But yes it's true, I do tend to respond more to the post
than the person. Same when I drove cab for 33 years, when
dispatched I responded more to the order than the person,
as in, "What color are they?", or, "How old are they?", or, "Do
they have any money?" I take them in order. I'm a fair minded
guy, really.

[Snidely]

Lo, on the 6/10/2023, Thomas Joseph did proclaim ...

> Thomas Joseph politely asked:
> Snidely politely responded:
>
>
>> What is cross-posting?
>
>
>> Plenty of us are cross when a post from another group crosses a
>> boundary.
>
>
> Aha. I assumed cross posting was always intentional.

It generally is.

> You're
> saying that merely responding to the wrong person, even by
> inadvertently keeping their moniker in the mix somehow, is
> crossposting?

If the post you're responding to is cross-posted, some newsreaders will
show your reply in all the groups the previous message was posted to.
GG won't these days, though in other days it did, and some other
newreaders will make you "check yes or no" or edit the newsgroup list
before it will go outside the group you're viewing from.

> I don't post from other groups. I am not an
> invader. But yes it's true, I do tend to respond more to the post
> than the person.

Most of us have seen so many posts be each of the cohort that we
sometimes know what the post will be before we read it.

> Same when I drove cab for 33 years, when
> dispatched I responded more to the order than the person,
> as in, "What color are they?",

Many of your riders were naked? Otherwise, "What color coat are they
wearing?" might be more useful.

> or, "How old are they?", or, "Do
> they have any money?" I take them in order. I'm a fair minded
> guy, really.

I would have expected the last question first.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[bozo de niro]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 3:31:09 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 31/05/2023 à 11:28, Hibou a écrit :
>
> ... "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
> "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again:
> draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
> Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one
> can't believe impossible things."
> "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
> "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
> Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
> before breakfast." ...
> - 'Through the Looking-Glass', Lewis Carroll.
> (Line breaks tidied.)

"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast." ... that's code for masturbation innit?

So the aliens are ashamed of it too eh?

[bozo de niro]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-should-we-make-of-ufo-whistleblower-david-grusch/ar-AA1cseFu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0bfce43c6b964563a902b08aa62735e2&ei=25

All this talk about aliens, is it worth the time or even funny, will it do much for stand up comedy?

If so maybe I should prepare some material?

What does alt.Usage.English say or think here?

What religion are the aliens?

Are they antisemitic, are they gonna steal my money, or what?

Will they gimme a flying saucer to buzz around on and pay my cell phone bill and gimme something better than an Assurance Wireless Phone?

-- Bohso --

[Thomas Joseph]

You may be more savvy than I when it comes to the internet.
Maybe you have a list of thousands of newsgroups. I remember
when there was such a list. I assume most people's entry into
any newsgroup is on the basis of recommendation or maybe the
result of following fellow foreign intruders into a new group. How
did you find this one? Maybe you started it. I'm serious though.
How are people supposed to find groups that suit them? If you tell
me, I might go away (but only if you really want me to).

Ps. I will tell the others to leave too. They will leave if I tell
them to. Just kidding, I don't know any of them. I did follow
one guy into this group though. I can't tell you who he is. Just
like the lawyers with client confidentiality his identity will remain
undisclosed.

[Thomas Joseph]

I am not your typical cab driver. In 33 years driving in L.A. and
down here I rarely asked for for money in advance. I had sneakier
ways of getting the money. Plus, the thrill of the getaway was fun
for me even if I didn't know it then. In the beginning I'd chase them.
What for? I know I'm not going to do anything. Now you've got me
on to that!

A guy gets in at the Prospect cab stand in Hollywood and says he's
only got $20, can he go to the valley? I ask what part of the Valley
because it's enormous, almost like going to another state. I didn't
care if it cost $30 or even $40, I'd take it on the basis of time. A
highway ride I'll take just about anything. The guy tells me all he's
got is $20.

When we get there he urges me further down the block,
checking for lights I suppose. He has me stop at a house
with the lights on. "Ah, she's home", he says getting out.

He's going in to get the $20 but he just said a $20 was all
he had. He was wearing a tweed coat and carrying books.
I enjoyed the conversation en route. Told me he drove a
cab in Frisco. Whatever. Now he's skirting the side of the
house, clinging to it sort of as he bounces out of sight.
I go around the block a bunch of times looking for him,
knowing if I catch him (and I'm fast), there's nothing I'm
going to do. I spent about 10 minutes with that, then
decided to hit the freeway back to Hollywood. I stopped
and got a coffee. I was just about to hit the onramp when
I said, "Why not give it another whirl?", as I turned around
and hit the same side streets as before. There he was!

I rolled up and said, "Uh, how about the money?" He's
walking fast. "Uh, I'm getting it", he says, hand in the
air in "right on it Lieutenant" style. I'm backing up and
pulling forward and he's going to other way. Finally I
got out and chased him. I was gaining on him. He was
pathetic. He was still toting the books. I knew there was
nothing I would do if I caught him, so I got up as close as
I could without touching him and yelled, "I'm going to kill
you", as his body literally jumped into another gear. One
enlightening and enjoyable aspect to the chase was realizing
as it was happening, looking at the guy's back, that this was
the first chase in my life in which I was not the one being chased.

[Thomas Joseph]

bozo de niro wrote:

> > ... "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
> > "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again:
> > draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
> > Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one
> > can't believe impossible things."
> > "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
> > "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
> > Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
> > before breakfast." ...
> > - 'Through the Looking-Glass', Lewis Carroll.

> "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
> Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
> before breakfast." ... that's code for masturbation innit?

I don't know Bozo, but I'd say it's pretty good writing and I
never would have read it were it not for this newsgroup and
your presence in it. I'm serious, that paragraph was nicely
written. Reading the whole book would prove too much a
challenge. I never read the book and never will. But a small
except in a newsgroup, I can go for that.

[Thomas Joseph]

bozo de niro wrote:

> All this talk about aliens, is it worth the time or even funny, will it
do much for stand up comedy?
>
> If so maybe I should prepare some material?
>
> What does alt.Usage.English say or think here?
>
> What religion are the aliens?
>
> Are they antisemitic, are they gonna steal my money, or what?
>
> Will they gimme a flying saucer to buzz around on and pay my cell
> phone bill and gimme something better than an Assurance Wireless Phone?

WE will give you nothing. We will not indoctrinate you. We
will not program you. We will not teach you. It is your duty
as an outsider to learn without teaching. Sit back and observe.

"Those who do not want to learn cannot be taught." - Gandhi, 2023

[Snidely]

Thomas Joseph submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:

[dramatic turns saved for another day]

> How are people supposed to find groups that suit them?

Luck.

/dps "even at the height of usenet, you still needed luck"

--
Courage is knowing it might hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same.
And that's why life is hard.
-- the World Wide Web

[Peter Moylan]

On 14/06/23 12:39, Snidely wrote:
> Thomas Joseph submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:

> [dramatic turns saved for another day]
>> How are people supposed to find groups that suit them?
>
> Luck.
>
> /dps "even at the height of usenet, you still needed luck"

I used to use the "subscribe" option in my newsreader, get a list of all
newsgroups, and select the ones that looked most promising. I'd later
unsubscribe from the ones that didn't work out. Not much luck needed.

But I see that Thomas is using Google Groups. I've never looked into how
one gets a list of all gropus there. One way, I guess, would be to use a
real newsreader to get a list of all groups, write down the ones that
look suitable, and then go back to GG to subscribe to them.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:17:40 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/06/23 12:39, Snidely wrote:
>> Thomas Joseph submitted this gripping article, maybe on Tuesday:
>
>> [dramatic turns saved for another day]
>>> How are people supposed to find groups that suit them?
>>
>> Luck.
>>
>> /dps "even at the height of usenet, you still needed luck"
>
>I used to use the "subscribe" option in my newsreader, get a list of all
>newsgroups, and select the ones that looked most promising. I'd later
>unsubscribe from the ones that didn't work out. Not much luck needed.

I use Forte Agent, which can provide a 'directory' of all groups
available from my usenet provider, Giganews. Years ago, it had
something like 104,000 groups, which included some with names
with spelling errors. I think some readers or providers might
disallow any attempt to post to a non-registered group. I think
I found the .stats groups where I answered questions for years
by searching the directory for matches to 'stat'.

New groups could also be discovered from cross-posts -- like, I
cross-posted an AUE question to a math-stat group a few months back.
You could discover them, they could have discovered us. More
interesting 20 years ago, than today, when so many groups are
moribund.

[check] I see that Giganews today has 111120 groups to show me.

IIRC, 30 years ago, when I found my first groups, there were
occasional news articles about 'interesting' groups. There was
a funny one, rather like a blog, with posts from people running
a lemur colony. I may have found AUE from articles.

>
>But I see that Thomas is using Google Groups. I've never looked into how
>one gets a list of all gropus there. One way, I guess, would be to use a
>real newsreader to get a list of all groups, write down the ones that
>look suitable, and then go back to GG to subscribe to them.

It used to be that some statistical questions posed on Google
would yield a Usenet post on the subject. So, that was one way
to discover a new group, serendipitously.

In fact, when "Google Groups" became hard to use, I switched to
searches in Google. That, of course, was a few years ago when
we in AUE also saw a bunch of drop-by posters who knew nothing
of usenet, didn't subscribe, couldn't read the answers if they
wanted to. Oh, and tended to comment on Threads that were 5
or 15 years past.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 5:57:54 PM UTC-4, Thomas Joseph wrote:

> I am not your typical cab driver. In 33 years driving in L.A. and
> down here I rarely asked for for money in advance.

Doing so would be illegal in NYC. (There may be or may have been
a few "set rates" from an airport to a specific destination.)

The introduction of OOOOOber and Lyyyyyyft nearly destroyed t
he taxicab industry, aside from being vastly more expensive, but
the city is fighting back.

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter Moylan wrote:

> But I see that Thomas is using Google Groups. I've never looked into how
> one gets a list of all gropus there. One way, I guess, would be to use a
> real newsreader to get a list of all groups, write down the ones that
> look suitable, and then go back to GG to subscribe to them.

I'm on ancient equipment. That's a bit extreme - and unfair. It's
a used computer. I can't do everything with this machine but it's
enough for me. I once had a list of all or most of the groups. It
was long. The first group I ever went to became my regular and
only group for the longest time - alt.comedy.standup. It still exists
in the way a once living person still exists as a corpse and how
the corpse continues to exist till it is entirely eaten away by time
and hunger. The comedy group was way more active than any
group I've ever seen. But it was splintered. Those who originated
the group or got to it first considered everyone new to be a troll. I
never liked the term. I have done standup. But I am not a pro and
I'm glad I didn't go that route. TMA - too much aggravation. And
too much work. Anyway, I'm not searching for a group. To tell
the truth (always), I came to this group because a guy I know
from the old group had posted here a few times. He was
crossposting, I guess. Anyway, I'm not searching for anything.
I don't like the hunt. Not for anything. Movies, news, whatever -
I'm open to it - but it's going to have to come to me. Thanks, Moylan.

[Thomas Joseph]

I drove up till about ten years ago. Drivers were railing against
Uber and the like but I never got into that because I thought then
and think now that most cab companies are garbage to begin
with - and the same will happen to Uber and any other company
that comes along.

When I did not use the meter - which was most of the time - it was
not to screw people over, if anything quite the opposite. I was
stressed and concerned about paying the rent and eating. The
than that I wan't trying then and am not trying now to get anywhere
in life financially. I know one thing: Uber drivers and the like will
never have the stories I do. They get paid even if the fare is not
there. I talked with a few of them and most seemed like deadbeats
to me. Zombie like. No energy.

"A good story about losing money is worth more than
the money lost." - TJ