Many Worlds morality

101 views
Skip to first unread message

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 2:16:57 AM9/25/19
to Everything List

Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll

Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.

He asks:

"If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"


(From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


But he gives away the game here:

"To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."

Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, because there is no new material needed.

(The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

@philipthrift


Stathis Papaioannou

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 2:25:58 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion.
--
Stathis Papaioannou

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 3:55:31 AM9/25/19
to Everything List
What I know is that materials science  taught in universities, applied in technology companies.

But nonmaterials "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no applications.

@philipthrift

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 4:00:52 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
So what ? We're talking ontology/metaphysics here, so it has no application... You don't use ontology to make things.

Putting matter as primary is no less religious than if it is not, that's all, so treating other religious regarding that is ridiculous. Of course they are, as much as you are about matter being primary.

Quentin 
@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/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com.


--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 4:21:15 AM9/25/19
to Everything List
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.


--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)




"ontology/metaphysics ... has no application"

Then it's a great idea to throw away or ignore all the books/articles that are ""ontology/metaphysics".

@philipthrift

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 4:24:18 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
You are on the everything list, whose goal is to talk about everything theories/ideas *which are* about metaphysics/ontology, may I suggest that you're on the wrong mailing list.

@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/3e477a0f-26b9-42cf-b114-94b3b7a22293%40googlegroups.com.

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 4:26:01 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 5:49:24 AM9/25/19
to Everything List
I see you have nothing constructive of insightful to say about the article on morality I posted by Sean Carroll from Literary Hub, which was a well-written article. I made a comment on the article in my post ,and cited what he said. You didn't in your post.

But I can see you are the type of person who rants and never reads, nor can post anything of their own of any interest.

@philipthrift

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 6:02:49 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Well now the insults... Okay.

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/d0568429-ccd7-4485-ae8d-f17a6675fe3d%40googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 6:06:09 AM9/25/19
to Everything List


Sorry, I didn't realize you were the Group Nazi.

@philipthrift


--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Alan Grayson

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 6:33:25 AM9/25/19
to Everything List


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:16:57 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll

Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.

He asks:

"If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"


(From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


But he gives away the game here:

"To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."

Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

How do you distinguish stochastic probability from quantum probability? AG 

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 6:51:59 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
And more insults...  

You're first calling others religious, saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit on a list just about that, then more insults... well I'm sorry for you.

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/0b1a0900-8685-4223-9961-3cc203aceae0%40googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 6:53:04 AM9/25/19
to Everything List
There is quantum probability, which is advertised to come from quantum chip random number generators


(to be concrete about it), where the claim is that the series of 0s and 1s one gets from then is true randomness (coming from a quantum source). 

Now in Sean Carroll's MW presentation, the computer with one of those boards in it would duplicate and there would be a 0 branch and a 1 branch with each 0 or 1 generated.

So at the end of seeing 01001110 on your screen, there would be 2^8 computers (and yous) in that many worlds.

"Stochastic" (Greek word origin) is just another (cooler, some think) for "random". In a probability theory track at university: random processes, stochastic processes, same damn things.


Assuming there is just one world, there is just one computer at the end of seeing 01001110 and no other computers in other worlds.

@philipthrift

 

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 6:57:50 AM9/25/19
to Everything List


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
  

 saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 



I said ontologies without applications is BS.

As I noted: You don't read. 

@philipthrift

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 7:01:24 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit :


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
  

 saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 



I said ontologies without applications is BS.


There are no applications to ontology...
 
As I noted: You don't read. 

@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.

Alan Grayson

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 8:28:02 AM9/25/19
to Everything List


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 4:53:04 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:33:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:16:57 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:

Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds.

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll

Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.

He asks:

"If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?"


(From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime by Sean Carroll)


But he gives away the game here:

"To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events."

Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity.

How do you distinguish stochastic probability from quantum probability? AG 

Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, because there is no new material needed.

(The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.)

@philipthrift




There is quantum probability, which is advertised to come from quantum chip random number generators


(to be concrete about it), where the claim is that the series of 0s and 1s one gets from then is true randomness (coming from a quantum source). 

This is an operational definition of creating a (quantum) random series of 0s and 1s. But I think there's a theoretically distinction between quantum randomness and the (classical) stochastic random process, and it involves the concept of interference. AG 

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 8:52:21 AM9/25/19
to Everything List


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:01:24 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit :


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
  

 saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 



I said ontologies without applications is BS.


There are no applications to ontology...
 


Ontologies (making them for applications) are everywhere in computer science:


Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology

                           




 @philipthrift

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 9:04:30 AM9/25/19
to Everything List
Stochastic processes and stochastic deferential equations (SDEs) can ne applied to phenomena whether they are truly random or nor.  SDEs are applied in finance, for example,

But Sean is talking about quantum randomness.

Of course quantum stochastic processes have a different probability definition:


classical: probabilities of disjoint events add
quantum: amplitudes of disjoint events add, the amplitude of an event being a complex number whose square is the probability of the event. 

@philipthrift

Quentin Anciaux

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 9:15:47 AM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Well it's not "ontology" per se which deals with the nature of the real.. and that (ontology/metaphysics) has no purpose other than an intetellectual one...  Maybe pursuing an ontology can bring new ideas that can lead to new discoveiesy which could have applications, other than that, ontology has no applications (and if you want to redefine the term as in your links, why not, but that doesn't change the purpose of this list which for you is talking about BS, yet still you want to participate... and call others name and what not, denying your own religious bias).

Quentin



 @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.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 9:19:50 AM9/25/19
to Everything List


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:15:47 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 14:52, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit :


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:01:24 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 12:57, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit :


On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:51:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
  

 saying ontology metaphysics is bullshit 



I said ontologies without applications is BS.


There are no applications to ontology...
 


Ontologies (making them for applications) are everywhere in computer science:


Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology

                           



Well it's not "ontology" per se which deals with the nature of the real.. and that (ontology/metaphysics) has no purpose other than an intetellectual one...  Maybe pursuing an ontology can bring new ideas that can lead to new discoveiesy which could have applications, other than that, ontology has no applications (and if you want to redefine the term as in your links, why not, but that doesn't change the purpose of this list which for you is talking about BS, yet still you want to participate... and call others name and what not, denying your own religious bias).

Quentin



Sounds like it's a good idea to shut down university philosophy departments, if that's what philosophers think.

@philipthrift 

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 2:08:35 PM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
You are right. And for a millenium; theology needed a cursus in mathematics of four years. The fundamental courses to masteries were Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, Astronomy.  Later came Diophantine Algebra, and even the apparition of algorithm and rules.

You forget Mathematics. It is also taught at universities and applied in technology companies.

The discovery of the computer was a discovery made by mathematicians trying to solve problems in the foundation of Mathematics.

The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe of the doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science.

Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting that another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit new interpretation.  It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory and the means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to recover the prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing consciousness under the rug.

Bruno





@philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 2:19:51 PM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
The question is “do you have the right to torture yourself” for example. That sounds weird, but that is what some machines  and humans will defend, as a universal right. It makes sense in a world where you can duplicate yourself. 

It is a sort of property of science (and religion “well understood”), and why it frightens many people, it give more right. That is deeply ingrained already in the very notion of Turing universality, whose prize is an unavoidable threat on security. The universal machine can preserve universality only be “welcoming insecurity” (cf Alan Watts: the Wisdom of Insecurity).

Science/religion gives right and power, but that is also why the tyran want them for themselves, and appropriating the religion is the good  common trick. Unfortunately that leads to pseudo-science, pseudo-religion and the suffering which go with this.

Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Philip Thrift

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 3:02:06 PM9/25/19
to Everything List
I was thinking of that. My Ph.D. (now 40+ years ago) is from this department:


(One of the few US universities then with a separately-identified Applied Mathematics department.)

One of my freshman classes in 1971 was numerical methods with many hours in front of an APL terminal.

Math is the hidden language of nature, I thought when I went there. The separate Mathematics department then didn't have as cool of a building as Applied Mathematics, a sort of gothic mansion.

@philipthrift



 

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2019, 5:17:37 PM9/25/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Group Nazi, or Soup Nazi (Check American humor reference, series, Seinfeld). I like the ideas (maybe) of an afterlife where your consciousness zooms in to your Closest Continuer, but, its smells unlikely, and thus is useless, and probably not real. The Netflix series Travelers had the minds from centuries from the future download into people who they knew were about to die, and then own their bodies, in order to "Save the World," from known, terrible, disasters that occurred. For me, I like creepy guy Woody Allen's comment on mortality, which was: "I don't want to continue living through my writings and works, I want to continue living on in mu apartment!"



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)


--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

Alan Grayson

unread,
Sep 26, 2019, 11:17:21 AM9/26/19
to Everything List
No. Computers were developed at Blechley Park, UK, during WW2, when the British were trying to decode German encryption, aka Enigma. AG 

The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe of the doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science.

Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting that another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit new interpretation.  It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory and the means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to recover the prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing consciousness under the rug.

But you haven't given a plausible argument why a monkey typing long enough, will produce QM. It will just be more text and nothing connected to the Scientific Method of validation, which surely seems to need a physical world for said validation. AG 

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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Sep 27, 2019, 3:43:41 PM9/27/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Yes, by Turing, who was among those logicians who discovered it, when working on the foundations of Mathematics, at the same time than Church (1936). Post got them with its normal systems and production rules, much before. Moses Schoenfinkel discovered a universal system, but without realising it, the SK combinators in Moscow in 1924, provided equivalent to Church lambda calculus, itself proved equivalent with the Turing machinery. Turing, and then the work of Kleene, made precise the difference between a universal machine and a universal machinery (we get them both at once, but there is an obvious difference).

Gödel also got it, without realising it, and he disbelieved in Church and Turing thesis, or Post law, that they got a mathematical definition of the notion of computable and universal machine, but admit it later. There are good reason to doubt, especially for Gödel who was just proving that there is no universal notion of provability, like Tarski was proving that there is no universal notion of definability. 

Yes, in the case of Turing, he will both discover the mathematical (arithmetical) universal numbers, and build the first step towards physical implementation of a universal machine. But I think that the true physical universal machine will be made by Suze and von Neumann, although Babbage will conceive it 100 years before.

All those works have lead to recursion Theory, which study the degrees of complexity of the arithmetical set, in term of degree of non computability. The arithmetical truth is highly not computable, but some relations are more uncomputable than others!

It is only the discovery of a precise mathematical notion of computability which makes possible to study the mathematical structure of the degrees of non computability.





The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe of the doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science.

Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting that another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit new interpretation.  It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory and the means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to recover the prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing consciousness under the rug.

But you haven't given a plausible argument why a monkey typing long enough, will produce QM.

You don’t need a monkey. I have given the algorithm which generate all computations, and, more importantly, execute in “parallel” (by dovetailing, *all* computations. Then, a priori, physics will be an emergent, non computable a priori, reality emerging from the first person indeterminacy relative to all computations. As the physical reality must be Turing universal, that has to be justified from inside arithmetic, including the physical laws. It is the only way to get, when we assume mechanism, both the quanta and the qualia, together with the genuine association. 



It will just be more text and nothing connected to the Scientific Method of validation, which surely seems to need a physical world for said validation. AG 

Not at all. It is hard to imagine a more refutable theory. It explains how to find the physical laws in the head of the universal machine. So we can do that and compare. What strikes the eyes is that we get a many-world structure (I got it before knowing anything about QM), But it took me 30 years to get a quantum logic, justifying also the symmetry of the physical laws, and how they break, from the 1p view of the machines (in arithmetic).

Keep in mind that this is not proposed as a new physics, just a (new but also old) metaphysics, testable, and justifying both the 1p (conscious) discourse, and the quanta (which appears to be 1p-plural, the 3p is only arithmetic).

There is a many-world interpretation of arithmetic on which almost all universal machine/number converge.

Bruno





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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%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/c03b3dfe-2df8-4e9e-bbfe-baa18f6aef1c%40googlegroups.com.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages