Turing Church is all about cosmic optimism

[John Clark]

Giulio Prisco writes in: Book review: Believing in Dawkins, by Eric Steinhart

> whatever “converts entropy into complexity” is still unclear.

Entropy isn't always the enemy. Maximum information, or at least maximum information that intelligence finds interesting, seems to be about midway between maximum and minimum entropy. Put some cream in a glass coffee cup and then very carefully put some coffee on top of it. For a short time the 2 fluids will remain segregated and the entropy will be low and the information needed to describe it would be low too but then, because cream is lighter than coffee, tendrils of cream will start to move up into the coffee and all sorts of spirals and other complex and pretty patterns will form, the entropy is higher now and the information needed to describe it is higher too, but after that the fluid in the cup will reach a dull uniform color that is darker than coffee but lighter than cream, the entropy has reached a maximum but it would take less interesting information to describe it.

Another example is smoke from a cigarette in a room with no air currents, it starts out as a simple smooth laminar flow but then turbulence kicks in and very complex patterns form, and after that it diffuses into a uniform featureless very dull fog.  

I like the fact that entropy increases, if we ever get to the point where that doesn't happen anymore that would mean the universe has reached heat death.    

To me, “supernatural” is a contradiction in terms, because if you define nature as all that exists, then everything is natural and there’s no supernatural.

I agree.  

> the jobs once done by God can be done by natural entities.”

They can do a lot more than that because the traditional "God" performed no job at all.

> To me, what the Gods can do is more important than how they became Gods.

I disagree. Regardless of how powerful they become, one started out because of random mutation and natural selection while the other started out..., well ...., it's never explained how it started out but however it came to be it certainly wasn't through Darwinian evolution.  That is a very important distinction so the same word should not be used to describe two such different things.  

> since they can do all the things that Gods can do, I just call them Gods.

By doing that you're just begging to be misunderstood. There is no word in the English language that is packed with as much baggage as the word "G-O-D", perhaps you like some of that baggage but there's no way you could like it all because much of it is logically contradictory.  I think it would be a very good idea to pick another word. 

> I like (actually I love) philosophy, 

I love philosophy too but I don't love philosophers because no philosopher has made a philosophical discovery in many centuries, although some of the better ones have done a good job explaining to the general public the philosophical discoveries made by scientists and mathematicians.

John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

Entropy is a frenemy. Without entropy we would not exist. Because entropy increases we must die.

LC

[Giulio Prisco]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 1:00 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Giulio Prisco writes in: Book review: Believing in Dawkins, by Eric Steinhart
>
>> > whatever “converts entropy into complexity” is still unclear.
>
>
> Entropy isn't always the enemy. Maximum information, or at least maximum information that intelligence finds interesting, seems to be about midway between maximum and minimum entropy. Put some cream in a glass coffee cup and then very carefully put some coffee on top of it. For a short time the 2 fluids will remain segregated and the entropy will be low and the information needed to describe it would be low too but then, because cream is lighter than coffee, tendrils of cream will start to move up into the coffee and all sorts of spirals and other complex and pretty patterns will form, the entropy is higher now and the information needed to describe it is higher too, but after that the fluid in the cup will reach a dull uniform color that is darker than coffee but lighter than cream, the entropy has reached a maximum but it would take less interesting information to describe it.
>
> Another example is smoke from a cigarette in a room with no air currents, it starts out as a simple smooth laminar flow but then turbulence kicks in and very complex patterns form, and after that it diffuses into a uniform featureless very dull fog.
>
> I like the fact that entropy increases, if we ever get to the point where that doesn't happen anymore that would mean the universe has reached heat death.
>
>> To me, “supernatural” is a contradiction in terms, because if you define nature as all that exists, then everything is natural and there’s no supernatural.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> > the jobs once done by God can be done by natural entities.”
>
> They can do a lot more than that because the traditional "God" performed no job at all.
>
>> > To me, what the Gods can do is more important than how they became Gods.
>
>
> I disagree. Regardless of how powerful they become, one started out because of random mutation and natural selection while the other started out..., well ...., it's never explained how it started out but however it came to be it certainly wasn't through Darwinian evolution. That is a very important distinction so the same word should not be used to describe two such different things.
>
>> > since they can do all the things that Gods can do, I just call them Gods.
>
>
> By doing that you're just begging to be misunderstood. There is no word in the English language that is packed with as much baggage as the word "G-O-D", perhaps you like some of that baggage but there's no way you could like it all because much of it is logically contradictory. I think it would be a very good idea to pick another word.
>

Hi John,

In a few hours I'll publish a podcast/video with a conversation with
Eric Steinhart. We touch upon many of these points.

I don't need to, and I don't, like all the baggage that comes with the
word "God." But I like enough of it to prefer using this simple word
to describe my ideas simply, without writing a new philosophical
treatise AND a new vocabulary first.

>> > I like (actually I love) philosophy,
>
>
> I love philosophy too but I don't love philosophers because no philosopher has made a philosophical discovery in many centuries, although some of the better ones have done a good job explaining to the general public the philosophical discoveries made by scientists and mathematicians.
>
> John K Clark
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv2RW6_B7e3jTXs553-aU8QZweOu25QTnb1P_-mVrT6G%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 1:24 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In a few hours I'll publish a podcast/video with a conversation with
Eric Steinhart. We touch upon many of these points.

I really enjoyed your podcast at:

 (podcast) A conversation with Eric Steinhart

I agree with about 90% of it and encourage others to listen to it, I do have a few quibbles. You both say there is no precise definition of determinism but how about this; if the universe is deterministic and if you tell me how much error you are willing to tolerate in a prediction and as long as that allowable error is greater than zero then the laws of physics allow me to measure the present state of the universe with sufficient accuracy that I can figure out what things will be like in the future within that margin of error using only a finite number of computations.

Steinhart says atheists are being "Christian normative" and are really just saying they don't believe in Christianity or in any of the Abrahamic religions, perhaps some atheists are only saying that but not all and certainly not the atheist that is writing these words. I say the fundamental ideas behind Hinduism are nearly as ridiculous as Christianity, although I admit Buddhism has not caused as much grief as the other large religions have, I think that's because at least in its original form Buddhism didn't claim to have access to any profound ideas about the nature of reality, it was more of a personal philosophy on how to live a happy contented life. I also think the existence of God and the existence of life after death are two separate questions with no obvious connection between the two; you could have God without life after death and you could have life after death without God, or you could have neither or you could have both.  

I was also a little disappointed there was no mention of cryonics.

John K Clark

[Giulio Prisco]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:42 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 1:24 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > In a few hours I'll publish a podcast/video with a conversation with
>> Eric Steinhart. We touch upon many of these points.
>
>
> I really enjoyed your podcast at:
> (podcast) A conversation with Eric Steinhart
>

Thanks John for liking this episode.

<the laws of physics allow me to measure the present state of the

universe with sufficient accuracy...>

This is, I think, an open issue. Chaos shows that even arbitrarily
accurate knowledge of the present won't allow you to predict the
future within the same margin of error for an arbitrarily long time.
Also, most current interpretations of quantum physics hold that nature
is not strictly deterministic.

<I also think the existence of God and the existence of life after
death are two separate questions with no obvious connection between
the two; you could have God without life after death and you could
have life after death without God, or you could have neither or you
could have both. >

I agree. In Eric's book there are sketches of theories of life after
death without God. The sketches are taken from the much more detailed
treatment in Eric's previous book "Your Digital Afterlives."

<I was also a little disappointed there was no mention of cryonics.>

Eric mentioned mindfiles and mind uploading (in the first part of his
answer to my question about plausible scientific theories of life
after death). To a computationalist like him, revival after cryonics
and mind uploading are essentially the same thing. I have been
credited for coining the term "cryionics for uploaders" to indicate
brain (connectome) preservation for future mind uploading.

> I agree with about 90% of it and encourage others to listen to it, I do have a few quibbles. You both say there is no precise definition of determinism but how about this; if the universe is deterministic and if you tell me how much error you are willing to tolerate in a prediction and as long as that allowable error is greater than zero then the laws of physics allow me to measure the present state of the universe with sufficient accuracy that I can figure out what things will be like in the future within that margin of error using only a finite number of computations.
>
> Steinhart says atheists are being "Christian normative" and are really just saying they don't believe in Christianity or in any of the Abrahamic religions, perhaps some atheists are only saying that but not all and certainly not the atheist that is writing these words. I say the fundamental ideas behind Hinduism are nearly as ridiculous as Christianity, although I admit Buddhism has not caused as much grief as the other large religions have, I think that's because at least in its original form Buddhism didn't claim to have access to any profound ideas about the nature of reality, it was more of a personal philosophy on how to live a happy contented life. I also think the existence of God and the existence of life after death are two separate questions with no obvious connection between the two; you could have God without life after death and you could have life after death without God, or you could have neither or you could have both.
>
> I was also a little disappointed there was no mention of cryonics.
>
> John K Clark
>

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

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv0UAyax3NMEU79_OuCEjP3DOShySGjDKmVKkw8YvHn1ww%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 1:11 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chaos shows that even arbitrarily accurate knowledge of the present won't allow you to predict the
future within the same margin of error for an arbitrarily long time.

If you ignore quantum mechanics and are just talking about Newtonian physics then even with chaos if you want me to predict a future state of a system with an error less than X (with X being greater than zero) then, if I know the present state of the system with an error less than Y (with Y also being greater than zero) then I could predict the future state of the system within the allowable error and do so by using only a finite number of computations. Of course it could take an astronomical number to an astronomical power of computations to make such a prediction so it wouldn't be practical but, although incredibly large, it would be finite and thus theoretically possible. But if you put quantum mechanics back in the picture then all bets are off and things become nondeterminative; yes if Everett is right then even with quantum mechanics things are deterministic from the Multiverse point of view, but since no observer has the Multiverse point of view and observers are the ones who are supposed to make the prediction that's irrelevant.

> Eric mentioned mindfiles and mind uploading (in the first part of his
answer to my question about plausible scientific theories of life
after death). To a computationalist like him, revival after cryonics
and mind uploading are essentially the same thing.

I agree with Eric about that, that's why when I die I opted that only my brain will be frozen, I saw no reason that my left big toe needs to be preserved, it would be a waste of liquid nitrogen.  

 

> I have been credited for coining the term "cryionics for uploaders" to indicate
brain (connectome) preservation for future mind uploading.

I have always liked that phrase but until now I didn't know you were the author of it. The only problem I have with it is I wish I thought of it first!

John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

Quantum mechanics outside of measurement theory is completely deterministic. Of course we have the question of whether there is anything ontological at all going on. It is with measurements that one has outcomes, where each outcome corresponds to a particular probability amplitude. You cannot predict which amplitude will "generate" the actual outcome. Even with decoherence theory all one can show is that a quantum system in a measurement, a system with a far greater number of degrees of freedom and in maximally mixed states, will surrender its quantum phase (for both superpositions and entanglements) to the measurement system. This leaves the quantum system in a diagonal density of states configuration that represents classical-like probabilities. However, you do not know which one obtains, yet an outcome does happen.

Chaos theory is not permitted in quantum physics in the same way it happens in classical mechanics. Classical chaos has lots of phase space filigree in trajectories of a system. Any partial loop or bend has angular momentum. Yet, in quantum physics we know there cannot be angular momentum smaller than the Planck constant or ħ/2. Therefore quantum mechanics defines a cut-off in the scale for chaotic dynamics. This is for the phase space trajectory. There is also, to confuse wording here, the phasor or the vector displacement of the phase angle of a quantum state. This is a part of the measure of quantum complexity. Quantum complexity is a much deeper subject. It is connected to the distribution of zeros of the Riemann zeta function.

LC

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv137bN-0sVcCR8vLDFF%3Dt0%3Ds-PEvLfHourqaDxjrvDS3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Giulio Prisco]

John,

< If you ignore quantum mechanics and are just talking about Newtonian physics then even with chaos if you want me to predict a future state of a system with an error less than X (with X being greater than zero) then, if I know the present state of the system with an error less than Y (with Y also being greater than zero) then I could predict the future state of the system within the allowable error and do so by using only a finite number of computations.>

This is not entirely correct. Sensitivity to initial conditions means that, if you know the present state of the system with an error less than Y, you can predict the future state of the system with an error less than X only until time T. After T, you need a smaller error Y to achieve tgecsame accuracy X, and this is an exponential runaway.

< if Everett is right then even with quantum mechanics things are deterministic from the Multiverse point of view, but since no observer has the Multiverse point of view and observers are the ones who are supposed to make the prediction that's irrelevant.>

Practically irrelevant yes, but not philosophically irrelevant.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv137bN-0sVcCR8vLDFF%3Dt0%3Ds-PEvLfHourqaDxjrvDS3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Giulio Prisco]

On 2022. Sep 24., Sat at 14:55, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quantum mechanics outside of measurement theory is completely deterministic. Of course we have the question of whether there is anything ontological at all going on. It is with measurements that one has outcomes, where each outcome corresponds to a particular probability amplitude. You cannot predict which amplitude will "generate" the actual outcome. Even with decoherence theory all one can show is that a quantum system in a measurement, a system with a far greater number of degrees of freedom and in maximally mixed states, will surrender its quantum phase (for both superpositions and entanglements) to the measurement system. This leaves the quantum system in a diagonal density of states configuration that represents classical-like probabilities. However, you do not know which one obtains, yet an outcome does happen.

Chaos theory is not permitted in quantum physics in the same way it happens in classical mechanics.

But the linear quantum mechanics we know could one day be replaced by a deeper nonlinear theory. Then we would get chaos back.

Classical chaos has lots of phase space filigree in trajectories of a system. Any partial loop or bend has angular momentum. Yet, in quantum physics we know there cannot be angular momentum smaller than the Planck constant or ħ/2. Therefore quantum mechanics defines a cut-off in the scale for chaotic dynamics. This is for the phase space trajectory. There is also, to confuse wording here, the phasor or the vector displacement of the phase angle of a quantum state. This is a part of the measure of quantum complexity. Quantum complexity is a much deeper subject. It is connected to the distribution of zeros of the Riemann zeta function.

LC

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 7:22 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 1:11 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chaos shows that even arbitrarily accurate knowledge of the present won't allow you to predict the
future within the same margin of error for an arbitrarily long time.

If you ignore quantum mechanics and are just talking about Newtonian physics then even with chaos if you want me to predict a future state of a system with an error less than X (with X being greater than zero) then, if I know the present state of the system with an error less than Y (with Y also being greater than zero) then I could predict the future state of the system within the allowable error and do so by using only a finite number of computations. Of course it could take an astronomical number to an astronomical power of computations to make such a prediction so it wouldn't be practical but, although incredibly large, it would be finite and thus theoretically possible. But if you put quantum mechanics back in the picture then all bets are off and things become nondeterminative; yes if Everett is right then even with quantum mechanics things are deterministic from the Multiverse point of view, but since no observer has the Multiverse point of view and observers are the ones who are supposed to make the prediction that's irrelevant.

> Eric mentioned mindfiles and mind uploading (in the first part of his
answer to my question about plausible scientific theories of life
after death). To a computationalist like him, revival after cryonics
and mind uploading are essentially the same thing.

I agree with Eric about that, that's why when I die I opted that only my brain will be frozen, I saw no reason that my left big toe needs to be preserved, it would be a waste of liquid nitrogen.  

 

> I have been credited for coining the term "cryionics for uploaders" to indicate
brain (connectome) preservation for future mind uploading.

I have always liked that phrase but until now I didn't know you were the author of it. The only problem I have with it is I wish I thought of it first!

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv137bN-0sVcCR8vLDFF%3Dt0%3Ds-PEvLfHourqaDxjrvDS3w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAAFA0qqMfAB%2BbDTGJAX7FG-nDA8j6EKg-Ag75uATiR8Erkqy9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Giulio Prisco]

On 2022. Sep 24., Sat at 17:22, Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

John,

< If you ignore quantum mechanics and are just talking about Newtonian physics then even with chaos if you want me to predict a future state of a system with an error less than X (with X being greater than zero) then, if I know the present state of the system with an error less than Y (with Y also being greater than zero) then I could predict the future state of the system within the allowable error and do so by using only a finite number of computations.>

This is not entirely correct. Sensitivity to initial conditions means that, if you know the present state of the system with an error less than Y, you can predict the future state of the system with an error less than X only until time T. After T, you need a smaller error Y to achieve tgecsame accuracy X, and this is an exponential runaway.

sorry that was “the same accuracy”

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 11:22 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

John,

< If you ignore quantum mechanics and are just talking about Newtonian physics then even with chaos if you want me to predict a future state of a system with an error less than X (with X being greater than zero) then, if I know the present state of the system with an error less than Y (with Y also being greater than zero) then I could predict the future state of the system within the allowable error and do so by using only a finite number of computations.>

> This is not entirely correct. Sensitivity to initial conditions means that, if you know the present state of the system with an error less than Y, you can predict the future state of the system with an error less than X only until time T.

Yes but that is not inconsistent with what I said. It would still be possible for me to predict the outcome deeper into the future after time T within the allowed error, I'd just have to know the present state of the universe with less error than before (although it would still be greater than zero) and I'd need to do even more computation (although it would still be finite).  

> After T, you need a smaller error Y to achieve tgecsame accuracy X, and this is an exponential runaway.

Yes but as long as you ask me to predict a time that is not an infinite distance away then it could still theoretically be calculated. In saying that I'm ignoring the fact that it takes energy to perform a calculation and if I do that many calculations it would give off so much heat it would disturb the state of the universe; but that is getting into the quantum mechanical realm and I was just talking about Newtonian physics.  

 

>> if Everett is right then even with quantum mechanics things are deterministic from the Multiverse point of view, but since no observer has the Multiverse point of view and observers are the ones who are supposed to make the prediction that's irrelevant.

> Practically irrelevant yes, but not philosophically irrelevant.

If quantum mechanics is valid, and all the evidence is that it is, and if nothing has a Multiverse point of view, then even a philosopher would have to admit that no observer can make predictions with 100% accuracy, not even theoretically. 

John K Clark

[Giulio Prisco]

<Yes but as long as you ask me to predict a time that is not an
infinite distance away then it could still theoretically be

calculated...>

Given unlimited computational resources, yes. But in the real world,
sooner or later you'll run against limitations of storage and time.

<If quantum mechanics is valid, and all the evidence is that it is,
and if nothing has a Multiverse point of view, then even a philosopher
would have to admit that no observer can make predictions with 100%
accuracy, not even theoretically.>

Yes. But you support Everett and I almost support Everett. According
to Everett, the underlying reality of the multiverse as a whole is
fully deterministic, even if individual worlds appear not to be.

Besides Everett, there is the possibility that future research could
derive quantum mechanics from an underlying fully deterministic theory
(as Einstein and Dirac thought, and now Wolfram).

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

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv3mZLNSUPy8NtX4mKKn1H-te1qjR9wnd4532O%2BYQjygig%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 3:00 AM Giulio Prisco <giu...@gmail.com> wrote:

><If quantum mechanics is valid, and all the evidence is that it is,
and if nothing has a Multiverse point of view, then even a philosopher
would have to admit that no observer can make predictions with 100%
accuracy, not even theoretically.>

> Yes. But you support Everett and I almost support Everett. According
to Everett, the underlying reality of the multiverse as a whole is
fully deterministic, even if individual worlds appear not to be.

True, but given that to every conceivable observer things appear to be nondeterministic because none of them can see things from the multiverse point of view then saying "the underlying reality is deterministic" loses quite a bit of its punch. If you ask "will X happen?" then, provided X does not violate any laws of physics, the answer will always be the same, YES. Will Donald Trump win the 2024 presidential election and become dictator? Yes. Will Donald Trump lose the 2024 presidential election and never become dictator? Yes. Will Donald Trump abandon politics, study biology and cure cancer? Yes. Will Donald Trump never abandon politics, never study biology and never cure cancer? Yes.

> Besides Everett, there is the possibility that future research could
derive quantum mechanics from an underlying fully deterministic theory
(as Einstein and Dirac thought, and now Wolfram).

All one can do is base his opinions on the evidence available at the time and as of today, although there are many theories, there is not one scrap of experimental evidence indicating quantum mechanics is wrong. 

John K Clark

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 10:29:04 AM UTC-5 giu...@gmail.com wrote:

On 2022. Sep 24., Sat at 14:55, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quantum mechanics outside of measurement theory is completely deterministic. Of course we have the question of whether there is anything ontological at all going on. It is with measurements that one has outcomes, where each outcome corresponds to a particular probability amplitude. You cannot predict which amplitude will "generate" the actual outcome. Even with decoherence theory all one can show is that a quantum system in a measurement, a system with a far greater number of degrees of freedom and in maximally mixed states, will surrender its quantum phase (for both superpositions and entanglements) to the measurement system. This leaves the quantum system in a diagonal density of states configuration that represents classical-like probabilities. However, you do not know which one obtains, yet an outcome does happen.

Chaos theory is not permitted in quantum physics in the same way it happens in classical mechanics.

But the linear quantum mechanics we know could one day be replaced by a deeper nonlinear theory. Then we would get chaos back.

There will never be a nonlinear quantum mechanics. Quantum gravitation in really standard quantization in the weak limit where the nonlinearity of QM is negligible. Spacetime and QM are I think categorically equivalent, and q-gravity may transform quantum bits of information into another form.

LC