Multiverse Morality

I see this as really key to understanding the wider worldview expressed by Popperians.Â
The big mistake I notice from non-popperians regarding MWI are the moral implications. For them, typically, the implication is that there is no morality because everything that can >happen will happen somewhere, with nothing special attached to what happens 'here'.
The reality is clearly different, and, I think....possibly this is the source of the attachment of Popperians to the counter-intuitive.
The true moral implications are actually really stunning and profound. Definitely putting morality to the centre of everything...above even physical reality itself in a way.
Only by living purposefully...being consistent...being philosophically correct....not compromising on principle, not living arbitrarily, not living altruistically...only by doing these things >can you in this one universe exert influence into the multiverse itself, and ultimately shape who you are.

I know it is a rather late reply but I noticed that no one answered to your candid post.
Let me explain my position as an "anti-popperian"Â
I read your post. I think I understood it. Unfortunately your effort to come up with some type of morality from MWI belief does not seem convincing to me. Â
The whole premise of morality (at least in the classical sense) is based on moral agents making choices in the way they act (out of multiple options) and their choices making a meaningful existential and circumstantial difference in themselves and in the world they live. In MWI world, the moral agent's choice looses its significance. Actually the moral agent him/herself looses its significance and meaning.Â
In MWI, there are infinite number of moral agents and they do choose every possible option anyway in infinite number of universes.Â Why would the choice of one particular self in one of the infinite number of universes make a meaningful difference from the perspective of multiverse existence? We know all possible universes do exist right? And they do not have any superiority or uniqueness with respect to others according to MWI. There is nothing special in any of the universes. We can not say one universe would be "better" than the other.
Or should we say it? There would be universes which are "better" than others from consistency, purposefulness and correctness perspective. Â Shall we try to be in the best possible universe? Why I would have such motivation if I already know that all other lower morality universes would exist in parallel whatever I choose and in the end I am not making any difference from the overall existential perspective?
Ismail AtalayÂ

I

_._,_.___

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest â¢ Unsubscribe â¢ Terms of Use â¢ Send us Feedback
.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nick Belane

2013-08-08 11:04:36 UTC

Post by hibbsa
I see this as really key to understanding the wider worldview expressed

by Popperians.

Post by hibbsa
The big mistake I notice from non-popperians regarding MWI are the moral

implications. For them, typically, the implication is that there is no
morality because everything that can >happen will happen somewhere, with
nothing special attached to what happens 'here'.

Post by hibbsa
The reality is clearly different, and, I think....possibly this is the

source of the attachment of Popperians to the counter-intuitive.

Post by hibbsa
The true moral implications are actually really stunning and profound.

Definitely putting morality to the centre of everything...above even
physical reality itself in a way.

Post by hibbsa
Only by living purposefully...being consistent...being philosophically

correct....not compromising on principle, not living arbitrarily, not
living altruistically...only by doing these things >can you in this one
universe exert influence into the multiverse itself, and ultimately shape
who you are.
I know it is a rather late reply but I noticed that no one answered to your candid post.
Let me explain my position as an "anti-popperian"
I read your post. I think I understood it. Unfortunately your effort to
come up with some type of morality from MWI belief does not seem convincing
to me.
The whole premise of morality (at least in the classical sense) is based
on moral agents making choices in the way they act (out of multiple
options) and their choices making a meaningful existential and
circumstantial difference in themselves and in the world they live. In MWI
world, the moral agent's choice looses its significance. Actually the moral
agent him/herself looses its significance and meaning.
In MWI, there are infinite number of moral agents and they do choose every
possible option anyway in infinite number of universes. Why would the
choice of one particular self in one of the infinite number of universes
make a meaningful difference from the perspective of multiverse existence?

I would say that it makes an infinitesimal difference.

Post by hibbsa
We know all possible universes do exist right?

Yes, and each of them has a measure in the multiverse (roughly a
"probability" if you want to see it in a different way).

Post by hibbsa
And they do not have any superiority or uniqueness with respect to others
according to MWI. There is nothing special in any of the universes. We can
not say one universe would be "better" than the other.
Or should we say it? There would be universes which are "better" than
others from consistency, purposefulness and correctness perspective. Shall
we try to be in the best possible universe? Why I would have such
motivation if I already know that all other lower morality universes would
exist in parallel whatever I choose and in the end I am not making any
difference from the overall existential perspective?

What you could do is to try to maximise the measure of "good" universes
whith respect to "bad" ones in the whole of the multiverse.
That's definitely something meaningful you can do!

I hope I have understood your points,
Piernicola

Post by hibbsa
Ismail Atalay
I
_

_,_._,___
Hi,

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ismail Atalay

2013-08-08 22:32:32 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
The whole premise of morality (at least in the classical sense) is based
on moral agents making choices in the way they act (out of multiple
options) and their choices making a meaningful existential and
circumstantial difference in themselves and in the world they live. In MWI
world, the moral agent's choice looses its significance. Actually the moral
agent him/herself looses its significance and meaning.
In MWI, there are infinite number of moral agents and they do choose every
possible option anyway in infinite number of universes. Why would the
choice of one particular self in one of the infinite number of universes
make a meaningful difference from the perspective of multiverse existence?

I would say that it makes an infinitesimal difference.

Actually I respectfully disagree. The multiverse would remain the same because all possible universes do exist irrespective of whatever you choose.

Post by Ismail Atalay
And they do not have any superiority or uniqueness with respect to others
according to MWI. There is nothing special in any of the universes. We can
not say one universe would be "better" than the other.
Or should we say it? There would be universes which are "better" than
others from consistency, purposefulness and correctness perspective. Shall
we try to be in the best possible universe? Why I would have such
motivation if I already know that all other lower morality universes would
exist in parallel whatever I choose and in the end I am not making any
difference from the overall existential perspective?

I do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is no room for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI. AFAIC, according to MWI, we humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if we have a real influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting according to objective equations during these processes Â and thus we do not make any real choice.
Ismail Atalay

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-08-09 16:36:01 UTC

I would say that it makes an infinitesimal difference.

Actually I respectfully disagree. The multiverse would remain the same because all possible universes do exist irrespective of whatever you choose.

I do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is no room for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI. AFAIC, according to MWI, we humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if we have a real influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting according to objective equations during these processes Â and thus we do not make any real choice.
Ismail Atalay
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be criticizing given what you are saying.

The philosophy is like an integrated piece of circuitry. C&R --> knowledge creation : but eventually C&R has to discover good philosophy, rationality, memetics, rational-morality, and a rich fabric of associated traits.....or C&R discovers something else which naturally refutes those features...or C&R breaks down.

These are the traits of universal knowledge creators. Universes that contain such beings, and see Englightenment-like events, progressively come to be defined by the presence of these beings, whom literally become forces of nature.

Universes that exhibit these traits in the multiverse, break out at dimensionality not seen in the other universes, which exhibit characteristics that progressively define the multiverse itself, in terms of meaning, morality, philosophy, point-of.

That's the package. You can't just say you don't think it would happen. Or not usefully. Not in a list that exists to discuss and critique the wider philosophy that implies that it will.

Ismail Atalay

2013-08-12 09:45:33 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
I do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is no room for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI.
AFAIC, according to MWI, we humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if we have a real
influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting according to objective equations during these processes
and thus we do not make any real choice.

IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be criticizing >given what you are saying.

If by wider philosophy means "MWI belief or philosophy", my main criticism within the context of this post would be that MWI leaves no room for real or genuine subjectivity. And this is very counter-intuitive as our entire existence as humans seems very subjective. The way we look as human, the way think, see, perceive the world. The existence of an unique and evolving inner/subjective world. Holistic qualities of human consciousness and perception and the way it is very tightly integrated to the inner/subjective world. And this is the "real" world we live in while everything else is "external" to us. To simply assume that all this is a big charade with no real subjectivity is not convincing to me.

From a more ontological PoV, I think stating that every possible universe according to an objective set of equations would exist is akin to thinking that "nothing exists or ever existed".
The philosophy is like an integrated piece of circuitry. C&R --> knowledge creation : but eventually C&R has to discover good >philosophy, rationality, memetics, rational-morality, and a rich fabric of associated traits.....or C&R discovers something >else which naturally refutes those features...or C&R breaks down.

I understand and really appreciate your effort. I admit that it is a courageous act.

Concerning MWI (or any other objectivist/mechanistic philosophy), I think subjectivity is the "elephant in the room". I choose not to fool myself by assuming that "Self" or "I" is a construct or is a structure or would emerge magically from objective computational/mechanistic processes. Firstly, we do not have any valid basis to claim so as we could not understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I" emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe genuine subjectivity would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is not genuine (they are not compatible).
My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make diverge but make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does give the existence its identity, integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is quite possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above) that leads to the macroworld we live in.

These are the traits of universal knowledge creators. Universes that contain such beings, and see Englightenment-like >events, progressively come to be defined by the presence of these beings, whom literally become forces of nature.
Universes that exhibit these traits in the multiverse, break out at dimensionality not seen in the other universes, which >exhibit characteristics that progressively define the multiverse itself, in terms of meaning, morality, philosophy, point-of.

As I have explained above, I do not believe that morality based on moral agent (aka subjectivity) would emerge from characteristics possible in an MWI only universe. For me, objective equations on which MWI is based are just constituents and could not explain the total package of existence.

Ismail Atalay

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-08-14 08:52:22 UTC

IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be criticizing >given what you are saying.

The philosophy is like an integrated piece of circuitry. C&R --> knowledge creation : but eventually C&R has to discover good >philosophy, rationality, memetics, rational-morality, and a rich fabric of associated traits.....or C&R discovers something >else which naturally refutes those features...or C&R breaks down.

I understand and really appreciate your effort. I admit that it is a courageous act.
Concerning MWI (or any other objectivist/mechanistic philosophy), I think subjectivity is the "elephant in the room". I choose not to fool myself by assuming that "Self" or "I" is a construct or is a structure or would emerge magically from objective computational/mechanistic processes. Firstly, we do not have any valid basis to claim so as we could not understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I" emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe genuine subjectivity would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is not genuine (they are not compatible).
My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make diverge but make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does give the existence its identity, integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is quite possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above) that leads to the macroworld we live in.

As I have explained above, I do not believe that morality based on moral agent (aka subjectivity) would emerge from characteristics possible in an MWI only universe. For me, objective equations on which MWI is based are just constituents and could not explain the total package of existence.
Ismail Atalay
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Ismail - thanks for your thoughtful comments. In terms of any total package of existence, Deutsch seems pretty much on the record in the title of his most recent book :O)

situagent

2013-08-23 02:39:10 UTC

IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be criticizing >given what you are saying.

I understand and really appreciate your effort. I admit that it is a courageous act.
Concerning MWI (or any other objectivist/mechanistic philosophy), I think subjectivity is the "elephant in the room". I choose not to fool myself by assuming that "Self" or "I" is a construct or is a structure or would emerge magically from objective computational/mechanistic processes. Firstly, we do not have any valid basis to claim so as we could not understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I" emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe genuine subjectivity would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is not genuine (they are not compatible).
My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make diverge but make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does give the existence its identity, integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is quite possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above) that leads to the macroworld we live in.

Ismail,

Perhaps you are assuming too much, or making the wrong assumptions, Just because MWI can be described with equations, doesn't mean that choices wouldn't be subjectivly experienced as well. The very fact that we experience moral choices subjectively is evidence that subjctivity is present in the multiverse.

Also, MWI doesn't necessarily branch in a temporal order. All possible paths exist simultaneously. We and our counterparts move through them in different possible sequences. As Don McLean writes:

So there's no need in turning back
For all roads lead to where we stand
And I believe we'll walk them all
No matter what we may have planned.

Over "time", the more moral the path, the denser the node, and the richer and more stable the experience. Like an amusement park, we can go where we want but, the more knowledge we acquire, the more we will construct rewarding and fulfilling experiences.

Or so it seems to me.

Ismail Atalay

2013-08-23 12:06:04 UTC

Post by hibbsa
IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of

the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be

Post by hibbsa
criticizing given what you are saying.

our entire existence as humans

in while everything else is "external" to us. To

Post by Ismail Atalay
simply assume that all this is a big charade with no real subjectivity is not convincing to me.
From a more ontological PoV, I think stating that every possible universe according to an objective set of equations would exist is akin to thinking that "nothing exists or ever existed".

Post by hibbsa
The philosophy is like an integrated piece of circuitry. C&R --> knowledge creation : but eventually C&R has to discover
good philosophy, rationality, memetics, rational-morality, and a rich fabric of associated traits.....or C&R discovers
something else which naturally refutes those features...or C&R breaks down.
I understand and really appreciate your effort. I admit that it is a courageous act.

claim so as we could not

Post by Ismail Atalay
understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I" emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe
genuine subjectivity would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is not genuine (they are not compatible).
My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make
diverge but make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does give the existence its identity,
integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is quite
possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above)
that leads to the macroworld we live in.

Post by hibbsa
These are the traits of universal knowledge creators. Universes that contain such beings, and see Englightenment-like
events, progressively come to be defined by the presence of these beings, whom literally become forces of nature.
Universes that exhibit these traits in the multiverse, break out at dimensionality not seen in the other universes, which
exhibit characteristics that progressively define the multiverse itself, in terms of meaning, morality, philosophy, point-of.

Post by Ismail Atalay
As I have explained above, I do not believe that morality based on moral agent (aka subjectivity) would emerge from
characteristics possible in an MWI only universe. For me, objective equations on which MWI is based are just constituents
and could not explain the total package of existence.

Perhaps you are assuming too much, or making the wrong assumptions, Just because MWI can be described with equations,
doesn't mean that choices wouldn't be subjectivly experienced as well. The very fact that we experience moral choices
subjectively is evidence that subjctivity is present in the multiverse.

The experience (moral, mental etc) might be subjective in MWI (at least it would appear to be subjective to the entity who experiences it). But this is a false subjectivity that could be totally deconstructed or reconstructed by objective equations and processes. There can not be genuine subjectivity relying on the ontological mercy of objective equations/processes.

Also your statement "The very fact that we experience moral choices subjectively is evidence that subjectivity is present inÂ the multiverse" tells us that you make an assumption first "there is multiverse MWI style". Then obviously we are existing in this MWI multiverse following from this statement. Then "We are experiencing moral choices subjectively" which is a fact. However it is obvious to me that all this could not be the evidence that "subjectivity exist in MWI" with the non-proven assumption of ""there is multiverse MWI style" in the first place.

Also, MWI doesn't necessarily branch in a temporal order. All possible paths exist simultaneously. We and our counterparts
So there's no need in turning back
For all roads lead to where we stand
And I believe we'll walk them all
No matter what we may have planned.

I can understand that. Thank you for the clarification. This is
exactly the point that troubles me for any morality theory "all possible
paths exist simultaneously"

Over "time", the more moral the path, the denser the node, and the richer and more stable the experience. Like an
amusement park, we can go where we want but, the more knowledge we acquire, the more we will construct rewarding and
fulfilling experiences.
Or so it seems to me.

I agree with your implicit definition of more morality leading to more richness and stability in human experience. Actually this is more or less how I would define morality.

However in this type of MWI morality, there is no truly subjective and unique choice. My choice or your choice becomes irrelevant. For example who are "we" when you say "we can go where we want". In MWI only existential package, there are infinite versions of "me" who are doing the whole range of moral actions from the nastiest and most cruel (unimaginable cruelty) to the most peaceful and loving. And I do not choose actually, these are just microscopic divergences in my brain cell chemistry leading to different/parallel moral "choices" in parallel universes.

Why would I feel any moral responsibility (right here, right know) if I know that whatever I choose, all possible choices and their full implications (from the most nasty/cruel to most benign) will occur anyway?

Sorry but I could not understand a morality concept without a feeling of moral responsibility, without a genuinely subjective choice and without making a real difference in the way the world exists.

Ismail Atalay

situagent

2013-08-26 04:14:01 UTC

Post by hibbsa
IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be
criticizing given what you are saying.

our entire existence as humans

Post by Ismail Atalay
seems very subjective. The way we look as human, the way think, see, perceive the world. The existence of an unique and
evolving inner/subjective world. Holistic qualities of human consciousness and perception and the way it is very tightly
integrated to the inner/subjective world. And this is the "real" world we live in while everything else is "external" to us. To
simply assume that all this is a big charade with no real subjectivity is not convincing to me.
From a more ontological PoV, I think stating that every possible universe according to an objective set of equations would exist is akin to thinking that "nothing exists or ever existed".

Concerning MWI (or any other objectivist/mechanistic philosophy), I think subjectivity is the "elephant in the room". I
choose not to fool myself by assuming that "Self" or "I" is a construct or is a structure or would emerge magically from
objective computational/mechanistic processes. Firstly, we do not have any valid basis to claim so as we could not
understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I" emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe
genuine subjectivity would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is not genuine (they are not compatible).
My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make
diverge but make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does give the existence its identity,
integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is quite
possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above)
that leads to the macroworld we live in.

The experience (moral, mental etc) might be subjective in MWI (at least it would appear to be subjective to the entity who experiences it). But this is a false subjectivity that could be totally deconstructed or reconstructed by objective equations and processes. There can not be genuine subjectivity relying on the ontological mercy of objective equations/processes.
Also your statement "The very fact that we experience moral choices subjectively is evidence that subjectivity is present inÂ the multiverse" tells us that you make an assumption first "there is multiverse MWI style". Then obviously we are existing in this MWI multiverse following from this statement. Then "We are experiencing moral choices subjectively" which is a fact. However it is obvious to me that all this could not be the evidence that "subjectivity exist in MWI" with the non-proven assumption of ""there is multiverse MWI style" in the first place.

I can understand that. Thank you for the clarification. This is
exactly the point that troubles me for any morality theory "all possible
paths exist simultaneously"

There seem to be interesting issues of emergence implicit in this issue. If we were talking about dinosaurs or crocodiles, the issue of morality would not arise. Did morality considerations coevolve with human awareness, knowledge, etc.? If so, are the moral standards that apply proportional to the amount of knowledge that we have acquired?

Do we have a moral obligation not to be ignorant? If wisdom is not acquired in a simgle lifetime, some paths may be more productive, and some counterparts may surge ahead of others, perhaps via epigenetic inheritance, at least in particular areas.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Why would I feel any moral responsibility (right here, right know) if I know that whatever I choose, all possible choices and their full implications (from the most nasty/cruel to most benign) will occur anyway?

Perhaps there are implicit costs that <you> are insufficiently aware of? (Lack of knowledge again.)

Post by Ismail Atalay
Sorry but I could not understand a morality concept without a feeling of moral responsibility, without a genuinely subjective choice and without making a real difference in the way the world exists.

I have quite a bit of sympathy for your position but, nonetheless, it seems tpretty close to trying to make morality true by definition. I haven't particularly noticed this to be the case in the world I live it.

Ismail Atalay

2013-09-01 15:23:13 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
However in this type of MWI morality, there is no truly subjective and unique choice. My choice or your choice becomes irrelevant. For example who are "we" when you say "we can go
where we want". In MWI only existential package, there are infinite versions of "me" who are doing the whole range of moral actions from the nastiest and most cruel (unimaginable
cruelty) to the most peaceful and loving. And I do not choose actually, these are just microscopic divergences in my brain cell chemistry leading to different/parallel moral "choices" in parallel universes.

Yes I think morality have probably coevolved with human awareness. However moral standards seems more related to the qualitative feature of "human awareness" rather than amount of knowledge. Lack of knowledge would could cause biased or wrong decisions but as long as moral standards are kept no big problem from classical morality perspective.

Post by situagent
Do we have a moral obligation not to be ignorant?

I would say "yes"

Post by situagent
If wisdom is not acquired in a simgle lifetime, some paths may be more productive, and some counterparts may surge ahead of others, perhaps via epigenetic inheritance, at least in >particular areas.

You do not need deep wisdom to uphold moral standards.

Perhaps there are implicit costs that <you> are insufficiently aware of? (Lack of knowledge again.)

Sorry but I do not understandt this.

If consciousness and existential awareness is true/genuine and if we assume humans have capability for rationality and logic, moral standards would follow naturally IMHO. If human beings do not follow these standards this would not make them less true.

Ismail Atalay

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard Ruquist

2013-08-23 06:06:17 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
**

Post by Ismail Atalay
I do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is

no room for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI.

Post by Ismail Atalay
AFAIC, according to MWI, we humans are very complex entities who are

pushed to fool ourselves as if we have a real

Post by Ismail Atalay
influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting

according to objective equations during these processes

Post by Ismail Atalay
and thus we do not make any real choice.

IMHO it's worthwhile thinking through what aspect of the wider

philosophy you are really criticizing, or should be criticizing >given what
you are saying.

Post by Ismail Atalay
If by wider philosophy means "MWI belief or philosophy", my main

criticism within the context of this post would be that MWI leaves no room
for real or genuine subjectivity. And this is very counter-intuitive as our
entire existence as humans seems very subjective. The way we look as human,
the way think, see, perceive the world. The existence of an unique and
evolving inner/subjective world. Holistic qualities of human consciousness
and perception and the way it is very tightly integrated to the
inner/subjective world. And this is the "real" world we live in while
everything else is "external" to us. To simply assume that all this is a
big charade with no real subjectivity is not convincing to me.

Post by Ismail Atalay
From a more ontological PoV, I think stating that every possible

universe according to an objective set of equations would exist is akin to
thinking that "nothing exists or ever existed".

Post by hibbsa
The philosophy is like an integrated piece of circuitry. C&R -->

knowledge creation : but eventually C&R has to discover good >philosophy,
rationality, memetics, rational-morality, and a rich fabric of associated
traits.....or C&R discovers something >else which naturally refutes those
features...or C&R breaks down.

Post by Ismail Atalay
I understand and really appreciate your effort. I admit that it is a

courageous act.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Concerning MWI (or any other objectivist/mechanistic philosophy), I

think subjectivity is the "elephant in the room". I choose not to fool
myself by assuming that "Self" or "I" is a construct or is a structure or
would emerge magically from objective computational/mechanistic processes.
Firstly, we do not have any valid basis to claim so as we could not
understand (actually does not have slightest idea of) how "self" or "I"
emerges in human brain. Secondly, I do not believe genuine subjectivity
would emerge from objective and computational. If it does, this means it is
not genuine (they are not compatible).

Post by Ismail Atalay
My personal feeling is that the basis for subjectivity is purely

physical but it is very low level and simple. It does not make diverge but
make converge. It does things standout from infinite possibilities. It does
give the existence its identity, integrity,uniqueness and specialty. From
such basis, human mind subjectivity emerge as a special case. I think it is
quite possible that it is the interplay of objective MWI framework and the
basis of the subjectivity (I have tried to explain above) that leads to the
macroworld we live in.

Post by hibbsa
These are the traits of universal knowledge creators. Universes that

contain such beings, and see Englightenment-like >events, progressively
come to be defined by the presence of these beings, whom literally become
forces of nature.

Post by hibbsa
Universes that exhibit these traits in the multiverse, break out at

dimensionality not seen in the other universes, which >exhibit
characteristics that progressively define the multiverse itself, in terms
of meaning, morality, philosophy, point-of.

Post by Ismail Atalay
As I have explained above, I do not believe that morality based on moral

agent (aka subjectivity) would emerge from characteristics possible in an
MWI only universe. For me, objective equations on which MWI is based are
just constituents and could not explain the total package of existence.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Ismail Atalay

Ismail,
Perhaps you are assuming too much, or making the wrong assumptions, Just
because MWI can be described with equations, doesn't mean that choices
wouldn't be subjectivly experienced as well. The very fact that we
experience moral choices subjectively is evidence that subjctivity is
present in the multiverse.
Also, MWI doesn't necessarily branch in a temporal order. All possible
paths exist simultaneously. We and our counterparts move through them in
So there's no need in turning back
For all roads lead to where we stand
And I believe we'll walk them all
No matter what we may have planned.
Over "time", the more moral the path, the denser the node, and the richer
and more stable the experience. Like an amusement park, we can go where we
want but, the more knowledge we acquire, the more we will construct
rewarding and fulfilling experiences.
Or so it seems to me.

The whole discussion up to this point has not considered top-down causation,
which makes conscious choice possible without multiverse divergence imo.
yanniru

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-24 21:44:13 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is no room
for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI. AFAIC, according to MWI, we
humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if we
have a real influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting
according to objective equations during these processes and thus we do not
make any real choice.
Ismail Atalay

Just to be clear, this point of view above is not specific to the MWI. It
applies to any deterministic non-dualistic physics, such as a Newtonian
block universe (no splitting, but no "real choice" either), or the
Copenhagen interpretation of QM. You would need some kind of non-physical
mind or soul in order to have it not be according to objective equations.
Which of course raises all the standard mind/body dualism questions, which
I won't repeat here.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ismail Atalay

2013-08-25 18:48:47 UTC

There could be subjectivity without dualistic physics. Personally I think dualistic physics or any conception of non-physical existence does not make sense and is not supported by (actually goes against) modern scientific evidence.Â
Having said Â that how could we be sure that the whole physics is solely explained and governed by deterministic and objective equations? Maybe there is a subjective aspect of monistic physical reality that eludes us because we can not access to it or our current scientific knowledge is not enough for any access to thus aspect. Maybe this is the reason why we are in great trouble in understanding, analyzing or modeling the subjective nature of consciousness or the qualia phenomenon.
By subjective aspect of physical reality, I am referring to some concept along the lines of panpsychism.
Ismail Atalay

Â

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard Ruquist

2013-08-25 19:42:51 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
**

Post by Ismail Atalay
do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is no

room

Post by Ismail Atalay
for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI. AFAIC, according to MWI, we
humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if

Post by Ismail Atalay
have a real influence or choice but essentially the universes are

splitting

Post by Ismail Atalay
according to objective equations during these processes and thus we do

not

Post by Ismail Atalay
make any real choice.
Ismail Atalay

There could be subjectivity without dualistic physics. Personally I think
dualistic physics or any conception of non-physical existence does not make
sense and is not supported by (actually goes against) modern scientific
evidence.
Having said that how could we be sure that the whole physics is solely
explained and governed by deterministic and objective equations? Maybe
there is a subjective aspect of monistic physical reality that eludes us
because we can not access to it or our current scientific knowledge is not
enough for any access to thus aspect. Maybe this is the reason why we are
in great trouble in understanding, analyzing or modeling the subjective
nature of consciousness or the qualia phenomenon.
By subjective aspect of physical reality, I am referring to some concept
along the lines of panpsychism.
Ismail Atalay

Top-down causation might provide a basis for free choice within a single
world.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.2275
Richard

Ismail Atalay

2013-08-26 10:11:56 UTC

Post by Richard Ruquist

do not think anyone has such prospect if MWI is correct. There is noroom
for subjectivity or genuine choice in MWI. AFAIC, according to MWI, we
humans are very complex entities who are pushed to fool ourselves as if we
have a real influence or choice but essentially the universes are splitting
according to objective equations during these processes and thus we do
not make any real choice.
Ismail Atalay

There could be subjectivity without dualistic physics. Personally I think
dualistic physics or any conception of non-physical existence does not make
sense and is not supported by (actually goes against) modern scientific
evidence.
Having said that how could we be sure that the whole physics is solely
explained and governed by deterministic and objective equations? Maybe
there is a subjective aspect of monistic physical reality that eludes us
because we can not access to it or our current scientific knowledge is not
enough for any access to thus aspect. Maybe this is the reason why we are
in great trouble in understanding, analyzing or modeling the subjective
nature of consciousness or the qualia phenomenon.
By subjective aspect of physical reality, I am referring to some concept
along the lines of panpsychism.
Ismail Atalay

Top-down causation might provide a basis for free choice within a single
world.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.2275
Richard

Richard,
Thank you very much for sending this link. I happen to be an electronic/computer engineer specialized on artificial intelligence, algorithms, electronic implementation etc. Actively/professionally working on almost every aspect of digital systems over the course of the last 21 years. I have also close interest to philosophy of science and to philosphy of mind since my childhood.
I would like mention that top-down causation explained in this article could in no way be the basis for free choice.
In the end of the day, any digital computer is a physical machine with predefined&predesigned flexibilities that allows changes in the way it operates through instructions called "software". There is nothing non-physical or not relying heavily on physical in a digital computer. Things seems more abstract and less tangible in upper layers but these are only representations of underlying complexity of the lower layers. Upper layers (above physical) do not have an ontological existence.

Top-down causation is a common phenomenon in every machine. One of the top reasons we are using electronics is that it is making the top-down causation more manageable and flexible. Digital electronic systems are purely based on mechanistic, deterministic causation and this works in both ways (bottom-up or up-to-bottom) because they are designed to work that way. Actually the system designers would be very careful so that these two causality arrows in different directions do not clash or do not interfere in an uncontrolled or non-managed way.
You could say that in biological systems maybe there is no such isolation and two causality chains are allowed to clash and to interfere each other in the ways we do not know yet. Would it make a difference? I do not think so. Such system would be more random and less predictable but this is not our aim. It would be always possible to introduce or to integrate randomness and unpredictability to digital electronic systems we design but this does mean that they are making free choices.

In my opinion, free choice would require truly subjective (first person "I") perspective and existential awareness that brings the potential to break all causality chains internal or external to the entity who is performing it.
Ismail Atalay

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

situagent

2013-08-26 04:41:55 UTC

Hmm, I'm not sure that panpsychism is necessary for subjectivity.

But I'm interested in multiple levels of emergence, and how the different levels do interface with each other. DD's analysis in The Beginning of Infinity, clearly indicates that higher levels of emergence are coarse-grained relative to more detailed levels of explanation, and the latter do not exercise deterministic control the former (although they may define feasible and infeasible regions). The lack of determinate causation among explanatory levels might provide a space in which subjectivity can arise.

Post by Ismail Atalay
Â
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ismail Atalay

2013-09-01 15:49:11 UTC

Post by Gary Oberbrunner
Just to be clear, this point of view above is not specific to the MWI. It
applies to any deterministic non-dualistic physics, such as a Newtonian
block universe (no splitting, but no "real choice" either), or the
Copenhagen interpretation of QM. You would need some kind of non-physical
mind or soul in order to have it not be according to objective equations.
Which of course raises all the standard mind/body dualism questions, which
I won't repeat here.

There could be subjectivity without dualistic physics. Personally I think dualistic physics or any conception of non-physical existence does not make sense and is not supported by
(actually goes against) modern scientific evidence.
Having said that how could we be sure that the whole physics is solely explained and governed by deterministic and objective equations? Maybe there is a subjective aspect of
monistic physical reality that eludes us because we can not access to it or our current scientific knowledge is not enough for any access to thus aspect. Maybe this is the reason why we
are in great trouble in understanding, analyzing or modeling the subjective nature of consciousness or the qualia phenomenon.
By subjective aspect of physical reality, I am referring to some concept along the lines of panpsychism.

Hmm, I'm not sure that panpsychism is necessary for subjectivity.

I can not see other explanation. My experience, logic and intuition tells me that genuine subjectivity (the "self") could not arise from objective and mechanistic processes. There should be something deep inside the fabric of existence supporting or enabling subjective perspective. I am not saying panpsychism is the ultimate answer neither I do fully subscribe to its worldview. But at least this philosophy makes justice to the depth of the philosophical problem we are facing.

Panpsychic world view has its own problems of how objective equations and processes emerge. (just as there are problems in explaining subjectivity in objectivist/mechanistic mindset). I think concerning these issues we are in somehow backwards stages. The discussion is reminiscient of "whether light is a wave or a particle" back in 20th century. Now we know that it is neither of these two or it is both.

Post by situagent
But I'm interested in multiple levels of emergence, and how the different levels do interface with each other. DD's analysis in The Beginning of Infinity, clearly indicates that higher levels
of emergence are coarse-grained relative to more detailed levels of explanation, and the latter do not exercise deterministic control the former (although they may define feasible and
infeasible regions). The lack of determinate causation among explanatory levels might provide a space in which subjectivity can arise.

Lack of causation does not bring subjectivity. This is a direct and very tangible lesson we have learned from intelligence emerging in digital systems. There is probably lack of causation even in your digital watch but this does not make the digital watch "subjective"

Ismail Atalay

hibbsa

2013-08-28 22:22:31 UTC

Hi Gary - Sorry for not replying sooner but I am away quite a lot and often don't see these lists for days or weeks or longer. However, what I want to do right off the bat, is express my appreciation to you for taking the time from your own busy life to try to decode my often incoherent rantings. This is strongly appreciated and valued by myself.

About what you say here. Admittedly in this particular thread I had begun to pretty much challenge whether the sort of variation seen in diverging universings had *any* influence up emergent levels. But that was partly motivated by the lack of responses....I thought I'd try throwing a trap or two. Seriously... if you search back on this basic issue I've been raising, you'll see that generally the discussion has been in terms of whether such differences are ever statistically significant - statistics being in whatever single universe terms that word is usually used to mean.

On that matter - the tense that you are raising here with your chaos example of macroscopic amplification - my basic position has been that I am saying exactly the same thing that MWI itself says. Namely, that the multiverse represents all the possible outcomes, in the same way that, within a one-universe model - a statistical model of the possibilities would say the same thing. As such, the multiverse could be conceptualized as a statistical model. Albeit one that cannot be derived for real.

In that context, what I am challenging, is whether the multiverse - in context of the divergence from some ancestor world, can ever produce novelty that, were that novelty to have occurred in the ancestor world, it would have amounted to a statistically significant change in that ancestor world.

I know that the idea of sensitive initial conditions, and the example you have given, do back off onto hard theory that does say this is possible. The Butterfly effect and so on, as you have mentioned a couple of times.

But the problem I have with applying that sort of theory within the context of emergence, is that....what if there are 100 or 100 fully distinct emergent levels in our universe. So far as I know, there are no properly worked through variants on chaos theory, that describe the effect in terms of that emergence. I don't even think there are yet any hard scientific models of emergence that have made it all the way to mathematics. In which case, it's hard to see how it can currently be regarded as reliable, robust, reasoning, to speak of such effects within a context of emergence at all.

Beyond that, as I mentioned to you in a private mail a few weeks or months back, the issue I am raising here is not primarily about MWI itself, but about Deutsch's specific variant of MWI, which heavily involves the concept of fungibility. Emergence isn't directly linked, but he does describe a personal theory about emergence in BoI. So the issue I'm raising is really about whether these three concepts all work together properly, or whether there is a problem.

For example, can you or anyone, explain how worlds can be fungible - which Deutsch describles as being literally in the same dimensional 'place'....and not just at the quantum level but at all levels. How does that work, using Deutsch's description of emergence which explicitly rejects a purely bottom-up determinism in terms of emergences.

The implication being, that macroscopic levels - supposedly fungible - can potent ially be influenced by top-down effects, which presumably in some possible instances result in changes at the macroscopic level. Which presumably would violate fungibility. Which so far as I can see, would have to be see as a refutation of the concept of fungibility itself, unless Deutsch has an explanation how this can nevcer happen.....which in turn maintains consistency with his explanation of emergence itself.

Sorry for the brain dump....but once again....thanks for trying to make sense of me. I am grateful for your time.

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-28 23:52:55 UTC

[My gmail seems to sometimes produce bad indentation --I'll write this one
in Emacs.]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 6:22 PM, hibbsa <hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
...

Post by hibbsa
On that matter - the tense that you are raising here with your chaos
example of macroscopic amplification - my basic position has been
that I am saying exactly the same thing that MWI itself
says. Namely, that the multiverse represents all the possible
outcomes, in the same way that, within a one-universe model - a
statistical model of the possibilities would say the same thing. As
such, the multiverse could be conceptualized as a statistical
model. Albeit one that cannot be derived for real.

You have it just right; [quantum] probability in the single universe
we see is the same as measure in the multiverse. I'd only say that
the multiverse *can* in fact be derived for real; that derivation is a
straightforward application of the SWE.

Post by hibbsa
In that context, what I am challenging, is whether the multiverse -
in context of the divergence from some ancestor world, can ever
produce novelty that, were that novelty to have occurred in the
ancestor world, it would have amounted to a statistically
significant change in that ancestor world.

OK, let's unpack that. We have an ancestor world A. (By "world" I
presume we're talking about a bounded region of spacetime.) It
produces several successors: B, C, D, and so on. (Note that the time
bounds of these are later than A's time bounds, otherwise A wouldn't
be their ancestor.) Let's take B, which we know to be quite different
from A. I think what you're saying is C, D and the others are very
much like each other, but B is different (it has "diverged"
macroscopically from its siblings). Of course none of them are much
like A, since they're all later and things have presumably changed over
time.
So the multiverse produced novelty
in the form of B. So far, so good. Can you walk through the
counterfactual part ("were that novelty to have occurred...") in this
example? Are you asking how that novelty could get from B (a small
fraction of worlds) to become a large fraction of worlds later on, so,
say, the grandchildren of B would come to dominate over the
grandchildren of C, D, etc.? Or something different? Feel free to rework
my example to show your point.

Post by hibbsa
But the problem I have with applying that sort of theory within the
context of emergence, is that....what if there are 100 or 100 fully
distinct emergent levels in our universe.

I disagree with this. I think each concept (entropy, intelligence,
macroscopic objects, etc.) has its own emergent properties and layers
of emergence, and they're quite fuzzy; there's no way to slice that
across all concepts so there are 100 "fully distinct emergent levels".

Post by hibbsa
So far as I know, there are no properly worked through variants on
chaos theory, that describe the effect in terms of that emergence.

This could be a good area for research perhaps? Chaos theory itself
is quite well researched and worked through mathematically.
Modern communication theory for instance would be impossible without
detailed models of chaotic behavior. And of course chaotic behavior
is strongly emergent; fractals are the obvious example, but so is
period-doubling and various kinds of attractors. But I'm sure there's
more to be figured out.

Post by hibbsa
I don't even think there are yet any hard scientific models of
emergence that have made it all the way to mathematics.

Isn't that exactly what thermodynamics is? A model of how quantum
random behavior leads to stable (emergent) chemistry and physics?

And on the intelligent-behavior-emergence front, there's a lot of a-life
work
that could be seen as relevant (producing "intelligent" behavior
by evolving random genotypes for instance -- there's a lot of work
done around that kind of thing.)

Post by hibbsa
In which case, it's hard to see how it can currently be regarded as
reliable, robust, reasoning, to speak of such effects within a
context of emergence at all.

You may have something different in mind from standard emergent
properties here.

Post by hibbsa
Beyond that, as I mentioned to you in a private mail a few weeks or
months back, the issue I am raising here is not primarily about MWI
itself, but about Deutsch's specific variant of MWI, which heavily
involves the concept of fungibility. Emergence isn't directly
linked, but he does describe a personal theory about emergence in
BoI. So the issue I'm raising is really about whether these three
concepts all work together properly, or whether there is a problem.
For example, can you or anyone, explain how worlds can be fungible -
which Deutsch describles as being literally in the same dimensional
'place'

Well, I don't know about Deutsch (I can't make it through BoI, it's
too loosely argued) but fungibility is quite a standard term in
physics. It just means completely indistinguishable. Two photons are
fungible if they can be swapped without any effect. In the MWI, an
Electron which can be spin-up or spin-down has an infinite (or at
least huge) number of spin-up little-e electrons and the same number
(really equal measure) of spin-down little-e electrons. All the
spin-up ones are fungible with each other, all the spin-down ones are
fungible with each other, but the spin-up ones have a different
property from the spin-down ones so they are not fungible with each
other.

The canonical example is a Bose-Einstein condensate. Google that for
more.

Macroscopically I think the concept of fungibility gets fuzzier, but
it's certainly possible to say "...in all the worlds in which I do the
Schroedinger's Cat experiment..." and mean that all those worlds,
which may be microscopically variant, are FAPP fungible up to the
point of the photon being emitted (in some of them). There's no real
difference between them, you can't tell which one you're in, they all
have the cat, the vial, the experimenter, etc.

But of course that macroscopic "FAPP" fungibility doesn't mean
literally fungible in the QM sense. Of course there are many
macroscopic fully-fungible regions of spacetime, but at the macro
level physicists usually don't care about where particular air
molecules are. It's another form of emergence I guess: what counts as
fungible depends on the question. (Just like two dollar bills are
fungible when considering their value, but not when considering their
history, pattern of folds, or serial numbers.)

Post by hibbsa
....and not just at the quantum level but at all levels. How
does that work, using Deutsch's description of emergence which
explicitly rejects a purely bottom-up determinism in terms of
emergences.
The implication being, that macroscopic levels - supposedly fungible
- can potentially be influenced by top-down effects, which
presumably in some possible instances result in changes at the
macroscopic level. Which presumably would violate fungibility. Which
so far as I can see, would have to be see as a refutation of the
concept of fungibility itself, unless Deutsch has an explanation how
this can nevcer happen.....which in turn maintains consistency with
his explanation of emergence itself.

I'm afraid I get lost in these last two paragraphs -- I'd need to
understand Deutsch's concepts better I guess.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-08-30 16:04:25 UTC

Post by Gary Oberbrunner
[My gmail seems to sometimes produce bad indentation --I'll write this one
in Emacs.]
...

Post by hibbsa
But the problem I have with applying that sort of theory within the
context of emergence, is that....what if there are 100 or 100 fully
distinct emergent levels in our universe.

Post by hibbsa
So far as I know, there are no properly worked through variants on
chaos theory, that describe the effect in terms of that emergence.

Post by hibbsa
I don't even think there are yet any hard scientific models of
emergence that have made it all the way to mathematics.

Isn't that exactly what thermodynamics is? A model of how quantum
random behavior leads to stable (emergent) chemistry and physics?
And on the intelligent-behavior-emergence front, there's a lot of a-life
work
that could be seen as relevant (producing "intelligent" behavior
by evolving random genotypes for instance -- there's a lot of work
done around that kind of thing.)

Post by hibbsa
In which case, it's hard to see how it can currently be regarded as
reliable, robust, reasoning, to speak of such effects within a
context of emergence at all.

You may have something different in mind from standard emergent
properties here.

Well, I don't know about Deutsch (I can't make it through BoI, it's
too loosely argued) but fungibility is quite a standard term in
physics. It just means completely indistinguishable. Two photons are
fungible if they can be swapped without any effect. In the MWI, an
Electron which can be spin-up or spin-down has an infinite (or at
least huge) number of spin-up little-e electrons and the same number
(really equal measure) of spin-down little-e electrons. All the
spin-up ones are fungible with each other, all the spin-down ones are
fungible with each other, but the spin-up ones have a different
property from the spin-down ones so they are not fungible with each
other.
The canonical example is a Bose-Einstein condensate. Google that for
more.
Macroscopically I think the concept of fungibility gets fuzzier, but
it's certainly possible to say "...in all the worlds in which I do the
Schroedinger's Cat experiment..." and mean that all those worlds,
which may be microscopically variant, are FAPP fungible up to the
point of the photon being emitted (in some of them). There's no real
difference between them, you can't tell which one you're in, they all
have the cat, the vial, the experimenter, etc.
But of course that macroscopic "FAPP" fungibility doesn't mean
literally fungible in the QM sense. Of course there are many
macroscopic fully-fungible regions of spacetime, but at the macro
level physicists usually don't care about where particular air
molecules are. It's another form of emergence I guess: what counts as
fungible depends on the question. (Just like two dollar bills are
fungible when considering their value, but not when considering their
history, pattern of folds, or serial numbers.)

I'm afraid I get lost in these last two paragraphs -- I'd need to
understand Deutsch's concepts better I guess.
--
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary - you are too intelligent for me today...I was getting confused. So I'll try again tomorrow or day coming soon.

You're a smart guy with a dumb theory :o)

Leaving you with this: It's pretty common in science that a theory with a lot of reach has humble beginnings in something parochial. Stealing word style from Deutsch here.
In the best cases that local thing implies the wider implication, which leads to a process culminating in a mathematical theory that starts in that wider place and eventually finds its way back to the parochial place.

And so, a few months back I asked this list, whether anyone was trying to produce that mathematical theory of the MWI? Sure MWI is inferred from QM, but that doesn't matter at all. QM is parochial, it implies MWI, MWI is subjected to scientific rigour and genius, and a mathematical theory pops out the other end. Maybe profound non-trivial predictions are made not only about the multiverse but also about things we'd never even imagined right here. The predictions hold up, which drive a scientific revolution, which eventually sees the greatest ever technological revolution out of which humans come riding firmly in the saddle of the force of gravity itself. Gravity drives, warp drives, gravity weapons, maybe even a special dark door portaling this world to the next with more thereafter to the end of the multiverse.

Alan batted this away saying QM implied MWI not the other way around. I did mention at the time I didn't think that a legitimate.

How do you feel about it? And how is the progress coming along?

Not intentionally sarcastic, but yes I do know that absolutely no one has put any time into this at all. Why not? If everyone believes so much in MWI why is it still a disparate series of explanations? Why can it only explain retrospectively? Why has it never told us something we didn't expect to hear? The biggest expansion of reality of all time by about a million plus infinity, and it doesn't tell us a single non-trivial new thing about our world that we didn't already know.

Why isn't that a concern? My alarm bells went off about 2 minutes after the first time I heard it. Where is everyone else? :O)

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-30 22:09:07 UTC

Post by hibbsa
Gary - you are too intelligent for me today...I was getting
confused. So I'll try again tomorrow or day coming soon.

Please do -- I want to understand your ideas.

Post by hibbsa
You're a smart guy with a dumb theory :o)

Could easily be. At least the dumb theory part.

Post by hibbsa
Leaving you with this: It's pretty common in science that a theory
with a lot of reach has humble beginnings in something
parochial. Stealing word style from Deutsch here. In the best cases
that local thing implies the wider implication, which leads to a
process culminating in a mathematical theory that starts in that wider
place and eventually finds its way back to the parochial place.
And so, a few months back I asked this list, whether anyone was
trying to produce that mathematical theory of the MWI? Sure MWI is
inferred from QM, but that doesn't matter at all. QM is parochial,
it implies MWI, MWI is subjected to scientific rigour and genius,
and a mathematical theory pops out the other end. Maybe profound
non-trivial predictions are made not only about the multiverse but
also about things we'd never even imagined right here. The
predictions hold up, which drive a scientific revolution, which
eventually sees the greatest ever technological revolution out of
which humans come riding firmly in the saddle of the force of
gravity itself. Gravity drives, warp drives, gravity weapons, maybe
even a special dark door portaling this world to the next with more
thereafter to the end of the multiverse.
Alan batted this away saying QM implied MWI not the other way
around. I did mention at the time I didn't think that a legitimate.

You are correct in my view. MWI is only one interpretation of QM.
But MWI is principally a mathematical theory -- we put words around
that mathematical explanation to help tell the story. But the math
_is_ the ground truth. (This bears on your other posting as well --
all true scientific explanations are primarily mathematical.) You
could say that MWI is more strictly mathematical than Copenhagen,
since Copenhagen also postulates that quantum states collapse when
observed, and it has no mathematical model for how and when this
happens. MWI has no such mathematical inconsistency.

Post by hibbsa
How do you feel about it? And how is the progress coming along?

I'm an engineer. Not a scientist and certainly not a philosopher,
except insofar as I care deeply about certain problems in those
areas. And from that engineering point of view, the entire field of
quantum computing, which is admittedly still small but is making
(ahem) quantum leaps every year, does not really exist without a
decent (non-Copenhagen) interpretation of QM. So I'm pretty excited
about progress here. I can certainly tell you that the MWI framework
makes it _much_ easier to reason about quantum computers and quantum
information flow. I think it unblocks whole swaths of engineering
potential and will underpin the growth of the field in the next few
decades.

There's lots of other engineering progress based on QM that
makes a lot more sense with an MWI frame of mind as well;
transistor tunneling, photonics, and so on.

Post by hibbsa
Not intentionally sarcastic, but yes I do know that absolutely no
one has put any time into this at all. Why not? If everyone believes
so much in MWI why is it still a disparate series of explanations?
Why can it only explain retrospectively? Why has it never told us
something we didn't expect to hear? The biggest expansion of reality
of all time by about a million plus infinity, and it doesn't tell us
a single non-trivial new thing about our world that we didn't
already know.

Not sure what you mean by any of that. You think that the idea that
there's infinitely more stuff than we though is something we didn't
expect to hear? Or that we already knew it? Or are you saying it
hasn't produced any engineering results yet? I guess the jury's still
out on quantum computation (and I don't mean D-Wave, I mean _real_
quantum computation) so we will have to wait and see -- the lucky ones
among us will be working to make it happen.

Could you also say what you mean about MWI being "a disparate
series of explanations"? Seems pretty singular to me.

Post by hibbsa
Why isn't that a concern? My alarm bells went off about 2 minutes
after the first time I heard it. Where is everyone else? :O)

Most of them are in the "shut up and calculate" camp, which I think is
what you're advocating (more or less). There's something to that,
after all; it's the most humble attitude. As you know, I'm hugely in
favor of "I don't know" being the default answer for hard scientific
questions; I think the Deutschian (and especially some Deutsch
followers) position "whatever our best explanation is should be regarded as
truth" is a very bad way forward. We can often tell when our best
explanation isn't very good even if we don't have anything better to replace
it with as yet. I just think in the case of MWI, we have
crossed the boundary from "who knows why this math works" to "this is
a really good explanation". Your mileage may vary; I've seen that
something like <50% of physicists are MWIers so you're in good
company.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-08-31 04:10:00 UTC

Post by hibbsa
Gary - you are too intelligent for me today...I was getting
confused. So I'll try again tomorrow or day coming soon.

Please do -- I want to understand your ideas.

Post by hibbsa
You're a smart guy with a dumb theory :o)

Could easily be. At least the dumb theory part.

Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you have a link?

Perhaps you are attributing QM mathematics to MWI. Which IMHO would be wrong, even if it was 'right' that you could do it. QM is parochial, thus so is its mathematics. What I am talking about is a set of equations describing the multiverse itself. At least one falsifiable prediction would be possible as the consequences of such a set of equations. And that would be the prediction of how souls within individual universes would experience the multiverse. Now if the multiverse equations could predict, literally predict, the precise form of Quantum Mechanics....or even go further and predict macroscopic concepts like Space Time. Now that would describe the ascent into Science of MWI. There would also be a Nobel or two in the offing.

Post by hibbsa
How do you feel about it? And how is the progress coming along?

I don't understand the proposition of quantum computing very well. If it involves using the superposition, then I would like to register a personal prediction right here, that quantum computing won't ever happen on those terms.

The reason I think that, is that from a perspective of QM as one side something that the Big Bang becomes the other side, which is in fact inherently a position that requires the 'bold conjecture' that our universe came about by a process very much in analogue to Darwinian evolution (which kicks off a process that inevitably requires the emergence out of the Big Bang, as a 'development' or 'gestation' event, in that the actual evolution of all this took place back through pre-Big Bang history, as a progression starting with universes that flashed in and out of existence, to ones that lasted a bit longer, to others yet more enduring, probably thousands or millions of rounds, to get us here.

I can't be arsed trying to ezplain why that is for now, but cross me kippers hope to die, it comes out of a very hard set of constraints.

So anyway...that would be a very basic level illustration of the reality that I see, and in that reality QM never gets explained directly at all. What happens instead is that QM equations, because they are so accurate at predicting reality, becomes a surrogate for an empirically observable patch of reality, which then - just exactly the same way that 18th century chemistry came to be - that surrogate empirically observable landscape is paired to an embryonic, highly vague, explanatory conception, in such way that, the components of the conceptions can be played around with, until some small prediction falls out about quantum level reality, which can in turn be tested using that surrogate empirical landscape.

The process has to start like that, and for a long while it amounts to little better than attempts to mirror aspects of QM using a different conceptual model. The goal at that stage would be to arrange the embryonic theory in such way that, at any given point, at any given stage, there is precisely one logical consequence, that is not contradicted, that translates into a prediction about quantum behaviour.

Who knows if it would be successful and go all the way. But what can be said, is that in order to be successful the process *has* to ultimately correspond to a history of predictions/falsifications, in which predictions progressively got larger and more sophisticated, such that the overall distribution by prediction size tended to the exponential.

As such exponential distributions (I.e. asteroids in the solar system are exponenentiall distributed), ordinary end up with one or two really big ones at the top level. It is at this level that the falsification event occurs. That falsification event is hugely important, to the process and to science itself. The problem is though, almost everyone has forgotten what a falsification event actually defines in science.

It needs to be remembered. And what it is, is actually not the falsification event itself, but that whole process of progressively reflecting an observable section of reality into a paired structure that is very different and based on very different conceptions, but never the less in some sense at some level exactly mirrors that quantum landscape. In that, a translation procedure would be possible, that was self-consistent, in which one side of the pair could be translated precisely into the other side.

And that is what used to happen in Science. It never got written down or defined, because when you are in that process your intuition for it grows with the predictions. But that is how the really big prediction came about. It was 'grown' organically. And it had to be too, because for a prediction to be valuable in science that prediction has to derive out of the core of a theory such that everything about that prediction, reflects some aspect of that theory. And then, that prediction also has to perfectly marry up with some section of empirical reality that can be observed to a sufficient resolution, to confirm or falsify each part of the prediction.

Those two conditions need to be in place for the prediction to be meaningful both in terms of the theory and in terms of observed landscape. But there are further requirements. The prediction has to include components that blow out at new levels, such that it is now telling us something about that landscape, that is both substantial, and that is now running dramatically ahead of current technology, thus cannot be confirmed or falsified...yet.

Or that would be the first class variation. The second class is where the prediction tells us something is somewhere, that we hadn't thought to look, but that we can immediately go check on.

But Deutsch if he was reading this would be shaking his head and asking why these prediction events are important. Well, the answer is nothing other than, they aren't important save in two highly parochial ways.

1. They are important in that the nature of the process of discovery, is totally dependent on the character and discipline of the individual, and his commitment to truth seeking. This is because, the process can be operated trivially as simply a trial and error based construction of some mirror effect to what is observed, that does the job, but adds absolutely nothing new because it has no explanatory value all its own. Just a mirroring exercise.

In fact, because that can be the reality even the best intentions, it becomes necessary to ASSUME the whole process was trivial with no knowledge created. However, there is one way, and one way only, that can differentiate between instances that create new knowledge and instances that don't. And that is, the simple proposition that instances that create fundamental new knowledge, and given the process involves an intimate pairing of that observable landscape and a theoretical construct, it should be equally possibly for the theoretical process to run ahead of the empirical, as the other way around.

And this is why that falsification event is so fundamental. Not for large scale philosophical reasons, but for local scale procedural reasons, in that this is the only way to distinguish a process that apes out an explanationless construct, and a process that produces a construct that says something real about that observable landscape, that could not possibly be explained as an artefact of something that landscape said about the theoretical construct earlier on.

That's the nature and place of prediction. Or that's where it begins. But of course predictions accumulate new value as they go along. They tell us something new don't forget. Then they probably drive empirical improvements in the direction of accomplishing the resolution to see if the prediction is right.

Which is of course the seeding point, across which science begins to make the leap into technology. It always starts with the local value it brings to the empirical challenge to check it. But that process, in some instances naturally knocks on into other things. Which if such knock-ons exhibit healthy feedbacks and self-reinforcement can sometimes form a recurrent mechanism that drives improvements both to the prediction, the underlyhing theory and the empirical challenge of observing the prediction.

And in just a few amazing events in history, this process has just kept going until - sometimes - the resolution and precision of certain predictions and their manner of checking have converged onto some physical domain which that new resolution shines a torch on some new potential for manipulating the flow of energy.

And when that happens, if everything is robust, that potential then becomes yet another progression of discovery, that if successful culminates in a prediction for a mechanical bolt on to reality through which that manipulation can happen. And that's a technological revolution. Far from being some incidental event, when it happens it is the most profound event in the history of that whole progression that set out as a vague theory structure and an observable landscape.

It isn't secondary, it's profound. Which is why the concept of Progress is profound to the nature of what science is. Science is much more like a living organism than any other human created organized structure. Science is its dynamical progression, and that progression defines the heartbeat and blood of science. Science was born. It had a youth. Frequently went wayward, but always found its way home again. Science can die. Just like we can, and defined just the same way. Science begins to die when that progression begins to tail off. The death of science isn't a dead body, it is simply its translation back into Philosophy.

Already at the scientifixc frontier, a major dying off is well underway. But while there is a pulse someone, and anywhere in the body of science, the process of death is not finalized, and hope remains. At the moment we're basically safe because at the other end of science: there is an empirical revolution taking place, such that, paradoxically given the morbidity at the frontier, the revolution has never been so strong, the new possibilities whizzing by such a blur. But that flame will only carry on so long absent a theoretical frontier seeing progress. Empirical science cannot create theories of the calibre that we need. Theories can only come by the pairing process already mentioned, which currently can only take place with the mindseye of a human being within a rational process.

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-31 14:49:35 UTC

Post by hibbsa
Alan batted this away saying QM implied MWI not the other way
around. I did mention at the time I didn't think that a legitimate.

Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you have a link?

MWI is *literally* nothing more than saying that the entities described by
the Schroedinger Wave Equation represent reality. It rejects the "collapse
postulate" (proposed as the reason there isn't more than one outcome for a
given experiment, which is what the SWE says) and says that the results of
that equation stand as written.

Post by hibbsa
Perhaps you are attributing QM mathematics to MWI. Which IMHO would be
wrong, even if it was 'right' that you could do it. QM is parochial, thus
so is its mathematics.

Whoa, what do you mean by parochial? Do you mean QM doesn't apply
everywhere? The Schroedinger Wave Equation is by far the best predictor of
experimental outcomes we have ever seen, from the tiniest phenomena to the
largest; from the lowest energies to the highest. Where do you think it
fails to apply?

Post by hibbsa
What I am talking about is a set of equations describing the multiverse
itself.

Well, of course one first has to decide for oneself if the multiverse
exists, and what the term means, and so on. Tipler and others have a
different concept. But assuming you mean the MWI which is a consequence of
the Schroedinger Wave Equation, that multiverse is _by definition_ the one
described by the SWE.

Post by hibbsa
At least one falsifiable prediction would be possible as the consequences
of such a set of equations.

Sure! There are thousands. We run those experiments all the time, at
CERN, through cosmology, satellite orbital predictions, and so on. So far
the Schroedinger Wave Equation is still holding up well.

Post by hibbsa
And that would be the prediction of how souls within individual universes
would experience the multiverse.

Now we get into different territory. The Copenhagen interpretation says
that quantum superpositions "collapse" (producing only a single result)
when "observed". See Schroedinger's Cat. CI says that the act of opening
the box and observing the cat causes the state vector to collapse. This is
weird. What is an "observer"? Does it have to be conscious? What about a
video camera? Does the video camera stay in superposition til someone
watches it? MWI sidesteps all of that by saying that what the SWE
describes reality: the cat splits, the box splits, the observer/camera
splits, and so on. It all happens by very well-defined means and there's
no quantum weirdness. Specifically, there's no distinction between
observers and observed, there's no special place reserved for conscious
beings -- it's all just physics.

And the SWE does accurately predict what conscious observers (or video
cameras) will experience within a multiverse. Decoherence is a consequence
of the equations. And in fact there are ongoing experiments now in
preserving quantum superpositions of large nearly-macroscopic objects for
longer and longer times, which is what the SWE (and MWI) predict, but not
what collapse-based interpretations say would happen. (Google for "quantum
superposition of macroscopic objects" for more.)

Post by hibbsa
Now if the multiverse equations could predict, literally predict, the
precise form of Quantum Mechanics....or even go further and predict
macroscopic concepts like Space Time. Now that would describe the ascent
into Science of MWI. There would also be a Nobel or two in the offing.

I don't get it. How does it not? What's it missing? Maybe you're saying
the SWE assumes the existence of spacetime. That is true. It explicitly
takes the derivative of the wave with respect to time.

Post by hibbsa
How do you feel about it? And how is the progress coming along?

Well, it's already happening, sorry. Shor's algorithm (google it) has been
run with up to 7 superposed qubits. (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0112176.pdf). Once we get up to 32 or so,
using it routinely to break cryptographic codes will become possible. In
fact if I had to bet, I'd bet that the US NSA is already well ahead on
this, and just not telling. They have arguably the most to gain from
quantum computing.

Post by hibbsa
The reason I think that, is that from a perspective of QM as one side
something that the Big Bang becomes the other side, which is in fact
inherently a position that requires the 'bold conjecture' that our universe
came about by a process very much in analogue to Darwinian evolution (which
kicks off a process that inevitably requires the emergence out of the Big
Bang, as a 'development' or 'gestation' event, in that the actual evolution
of all this took place back through pre-Big Bang history, as a progression
starting with universes that flashed in and out of existence, to ones that
lasted a bit longer, to others yet more enduring, probably thousands or
millions of rounds, to get us here.
I can't be arsed trying to ezplain why that is for now, but cross me
kippers hope to die, it comes out of a very hard set of constraints.
So anyway...that would be a very basic level illustration of the reality
that I see, and in that reality QM never gets explained directly at all.
What happens instead is that QM equations, because they are so accurate at
predicting reality, becomes a surrogate for an empirically observable patch
of reality, which then - just exactly the same way that 18th century
chemistry came to be - that surrogate empirically observable landscape is
paired to an embryonic, highly vague, explanatory conception, in such way
that, the components of the conceptions can be played around with, until
some small prediction falls out about quantum level reality, which can in
turn be tested using that surrogate empirical landscape.

You could be right about all of this, of course. Who can say? I think
what you're saying is there could be a better explanatory framework for
everything out there, and our current explanations are some sort of "local
maximum" which is good as far as it goes, but not the real truth, and our
current form of explanation blinds us to the best one (and indeed maybe
lots of better ones). I think you're almost certainly right, if that's
what you're saying. But it was ever thus. Eventually enough hard problems
build up, and enough clever people propose clever new ideas, and we break
out of our parochial ideas.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-08-31 18:12:01 UTC

Post by hibbsa
Alan batted this away saying QM implied MWI not the other way
around. I did mention at the time I didn't think that a legitimate.

Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you have a link?

Please demonstrate this, by walking me through some arbitrary process starting with observed strangeness and ending up invoking a multiverse in order to prevent SWE collapse.

SWE is not literally what you say. It describes collapse events. The only way to fix things so it doesn't is with an infinite multiverse.

Why can't SWE in the raw describe reality, to include collapse events?

The rules governing whether you have to mention assumptions like say, determinism or local reality, are in terms of whether these assumptions causally influence the way things get defined and take as shape. If they do, then you'd have to enter into a process of abstraction and dependency elimation, such that a complete break was defined with all that, such that, now the multivers and SWE not collapsing are defined in temrs of some set of things that all become cancelled away.

It's got to real like that. You can't just turn around and drop massivelhy influential implicit assumptions, unless you massively get rid of the influences themselves.

Then there's the claim MWI is mathematical. This is only substantially true if you can show a set of equations, maybe SWE itself, that overwhelmingly capture the entire multivers conception, and also how it maps to individual QM events and all the rest. In other words, that we can say, going forward we are going to talk abiout MWI mathematically, using equations and consequences, and we care going to find that this a much more powerful way to work with MWI.

Are you making any of the above claims? I don't think so. I think we're stuck with verbal explanations of MWI. I don't think you would have much luck in any attempt to translate MW concepts like fungibility and all the rest, in some kind of intermediate structure that allowed full translastion between MWI and SWE and the rest of QM.

If you say different, I'm impressed. But then do it. Show me.

Post by hibbsa
Perhaps you are attributing QM mathematics to MWI. Which IMHO would be
wrong, even if it was 'right' that you could do it. QM is parochial, thus
so is its mathematics.

Post by hibbsa
What I am talking about is a set of equations describing the multiverse
itself.

Post by hibbsa
At least one falsifiable prediction would be possible as the consequences
of such a set of equations.

Sure! There are thousands. We run those experiments all the time, at
CERN, through cosmology, satellite orbital predictions, and so on. So far
the Schroedinger Wave Equation is still holding up well.

Post by hibbsa
And that would be the prediction of how souls within individual universes
would experience the multiverse.

Now we get into different territory. The Copenhagen interpretation says
that quantum superpositions "collapse" (producing only a single result)
when "observed". See Schroedinger's Cat. CI says that the act of opening
the box and observing the cat causes the state vector to collapse. This is
weird. What is an "observer"? Does it have to be conscious? What about a
video camera? Does the video camera stay in superposition til someone
watches it? MWI sidesteps all of that by saying that what the SWE
describes reality: the cat splits, the box splits, the observer/camera
splits, and so on. It all happens by very well-defined means and there's
no quantum weirdness. Specifically, there's no distinction between
observers and observed, there's no special place reserved for conscious
beings -- it's all just physics.
And the SWE does accurately predict what conscious observers (or video
cameras) will experience within a multiverse. Decoherence is a consequence
of the equations. And in fact there are ongoing experiments now in
preserving quantum superpositions of large nearly-macroscopic objects for
longer and longer times, which is what the SWE (and MWI) predict, but not
what collapse-based interpretations say would happen. (Google for "quantum
superposition of macroscopic objects" for more.)

I don't get it. How does it not? What's it missing? Maybe you're saying
the SWE assumes the existence of spacetime. That is true. It explicitly
takes the derivative of the wave with respect to time.

Post by hibbsa
How do you feel about it? And how is the progress coming along?

hibbsa

2013-08-31 18:55:12 UTC

Post by hibbsa
Alan batted this away saying QM implied MWI not the other way
around. I did mention at the time I didn't think that a legitimate.

Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you
have a link?

Please demonstrate this, by walking me through some arbitrary process starting with observed strangeness and ending up invoking a multiverse in order to prevent SWE collapse.
SWE is not literally what you say. It describes collapse events. The only way to fix things so it doesn't is with an infinite multiverse.
Why can't SWE in the raw describe reality, to include collapse events?
The rules governing whether you have to mention assumptions like say, determinism or local reality, are in terms of whether these assumptions causally influence the way things get defined and take as shape. If they do, then you'd have to enter into a process of abstraction and dependency elimation, such that a complete break was defined with all that, such that, now the multivers and SWE not collapsing are defined in temrs of some set of things that all become cancelled away.
It's got to real like that. You can't just turn around and drop massivelhy influential implicit assumptions, unless you massively get rid of the influences themselves.
Then there's the claim MWI is mathematical. This is only substantially true if you can show a set of equations, maybe SWE itself, that overwhelmingly capture the entire multivers conception, and also how it maps to individual QM events and all the rest. In other words, that we can say, going forward we are going to talk abiout MWI mathematically, using equations and consequences, and we care going to find that this a much more powerful way to work with MWI.
Are you making any of the above claims? I don't think so. I think we're stuck with verbal explanations of MWI. I don't think you would have much luck in any attempt to translate MW concepts like fungibility and all the rest, in some kind of intermediate structure that allowed full translastion between MWI and SWE and the rest of QM.
If you say different, I'm impressed. But then do it. Show me.

Post by hibbsa
Perhaps you are attributing QM mathematics to MWI. Which IMHO would be
wrong, even if it was 'right' that you could do it. QM is parochial, thus
so is its mathematics.

Post by hibbsa
What I am talking about is a set of equations describing the multiverse
itself.

Post by hibbsa
At least one falsifiable prediction would be possible as the consequences
of such a set of equations.

Sure! There are thousands. We run those experiments all the time, at
CERN, through cosmology, satellite orbital predictions, and so on. So far
the Schroedinger Wave Equation is still holding up well.

Post by hibbsa
And that would be the prediction of how souls within individual universes
would experience the multiverse.

Now we get into different territory. The Copenhagen interpretation says
that quantum superpositions "collapse" (producing only a single result)
when "observed". See Schroedinger's Cat. CI says that the act of opening
the box and observing the cat causes the state vector to collapse. This is
weird. What is an "observer"? Does it have to be conscious? What about a
video camera? Does the video camera stay in superposition til someone
watches it? MWI sidesteps all of that by saying that what the SWE
describes reality: the cat splits, the box splits, the observer/camera
splits, and so on. It all happens by very well-defined means and there's
no quantum weirdness. Specifically, there's no distinction between
observers and observed, there's no special place reserved for conscious
beings -- it's all just physics.
And the SWE does accurately predict what conscious observers (or video
cameras) will experience within a multiverse. Decoherence is a consequence
of the equations. And in fact there are ongoing experiments now in
preserving quantum superpositions of large nearly-macroscopic objects for
longer and longer times, which is what the SWE (and MWI) predict, but not
what collapse-based interpretations say would happen. (Google for "quantum
superposition of macroscopic objects" for more.)

I don't get it. How does it not? What's it missing? Maybe you're saying
the SWE assumes the existence of spacetime. That is true. It explicitly
takes the derivative of the wave with respect to time.

Post by hibbsa
How do you feel about it? And how is the progress coming along?

I didn't meant to say SWE describes collapse event, but can be described alongside them. Sorry about that.

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-31 19:12:34 UTC

Post by hibbsa
I didn't meant to say SWE describes collapse event, but can be described
alongside them. Sorry about that.

The SWE is linear. Any violation of linearity, such as actual
demonstration of collapse, would be a falsification of the SWE as well as
all our other linear physics theories (Newton, Einstein, etc.)

We can create nonlinearity (transistors for instance) but only within the
underlying linear framework of physics.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-31 19:09:59 UTC

Post by hibbsa
SWE is not literally what you say. It describes collapse events.

Nope, the other way around. Check the refs I sent.

Post by hibbsa
The only way to fix things so it doesn't is with an infinite
multiverse.

Not the only way -- but one way. Check the refs I sent.

One easy way to see that the SWE can't describe collapes is that the
SWE is completely linear. Collapse is, of course, highly nonlinear.
Thus it cannot described by the SWE.

Post by hibbsa
walking me through some arbitrary process starting with observed
strangeness and ending up invoking a multiverse

That's pretty much Chapter 1 of FoR; the observed strangeness is the
particle/wave duality. You can approach it from other angles as well.

Post by hibbsa
Then there's the claim MWI is mathematical.
This is only substantially true if you can show a set of equations,
maybe SWE itself, that overwhelmingly capture the entire multiverse
conception, and also how it maps to individual QM events and all
the rest. In other words, that we can say, going forward we are
going to talk abiout MWI mathematically, using equations and
consequences, and we care going to find that this a much more
powerful way to work with MWI.

The above is a good statement of how it actually does work in
practice. The SWE does in fact capture the entire multiverse as well
as individual objects and interactions. It's really the only way we
know of to make progress in the very large, very small and very
high-energy frontiers. Deutsch is a good popularizer, so he puts it
into common words well enough (in FoR anyway), but the core is the
equations and what they tell us.

Post by hibbsa
Are you making any of the above claims?

Absolutely.

Post by hibbsa
I don't think so. I think we're stuck with verbal explanations of
MWI.

If so, it would be empty of content.

Post by hibbsa
I don't think you would have much luck in any attempt to
translate MW concepts like fungibility and all the rest, in some
kind of intermediate structure that allowed full translastion
between MWI and SWE and the rest of QM.

Don't know that there is any intermediate structure needed.
Fungibility is a fact of life; not only a consequence of the SWE (like
everything in physics) but experimentally observable (e.g. in
Bose-Einstein condensates). The discovery of the SWE _is_ the
discovery of the underlying principle of all of QM.

Post by hibbsa
But then do it. Show me.

I would love to -- I have a day job though. Definitely considering
working on quantum computation once I retire though. But all the
progress in the last 50 years is pretty exciting to me; I think the
next 50 will be incredible.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-09-01 13:16:06 UTC

Post by hibbsa
SWE is not literally what you say. It describes collapse events.

Nope, the other way around. Check the refs I sent.

Post by hibbsa
The only way to fix things so it doesn't is with an infinite
multiverse.

Not the only way -- but one way. Check the refs I sent.
One easy way to see that the SWE can't describe collapes is that the
SWE is completely linear. Collapse is, of course, highly nonlinear.
Thus it cannot described by the SWE.

Post by hibbsa
walking me through some arbitrary process starting with observed
strangeness and ending up invoking a multiverse

That's pretty much Chapter 1 of FoR; the observed strangeness is the
particle/wave duality. You can approach it from other angles as well.

Post by hibbsa
Are you making any of the above claims?

Absolutely.

Post by hibbsa
I don't think so. I think we're stuck with verbal explanations of
MWI.

If so, it would be empty of content.

Post by hibbsa
But then do it. Show me.

Gary, OK. I respect what you are saying. The best explanation, would the implication that I don't understand MWI and its connection to QM and how this actually is hard science on anyone's terms.

The above is a major possibility simply because my interest in MWI has only ever been as one of the objects in the Popperian array. And my interest in *that* has for a long time been very much in terms of understanding how a way of thinking can be so right at the root yet get so distorted and off the rails further down.

I've always done this, I hope, with integrity. In that, whenever Deutsch or anyone has something that I can see possibility in, that I have done the right thing, and gone off and spent time reflecting on it.

So I guess I might have to spend some time trying on, what you are saying.

The problem though, one way or the other, is going to be that, if I come back agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't going to be any way for me to influence your point of view.

This is because you have, or you seem to have, adopted Deutsch's philosophy-based view of Science, which essentially rejects all of the ways that science has invented for criticizing and weighing between possible explanations.

I respect Deutsch...he says its about cleaning up the thinking. And sure, this can be about messy thinking my end. But, the way it looks when I stand back ten feet, is that with all that messy thinking Deutsch has swept away, he's thrown out almost every possible way to criticize and make object judgements.

Now it's just about 'good explanation' and that's just about good philosophy, and that's just popper and deutsch, and you criticize it, but guess what, any criticism you make at any level, is actually pre-refuted by the level above! Or to the left!

And of course, the only way to navigate it all, is by becoming total expert of the whole thing. And people that don't see the promise of a philosophy, or have major doubts, typically don't commit years and years to that subject.

Therefore, the only people that could criticize, are the same people that totally don't have major criticisms. And that is caused by the structure of the philosophy itself, and in effect it makes it impossible to criticize.

So it's the total opposite of what it claims to be, and what it thinks it is. Popperians think that just be saying you're fallible and by preaching it, and just by that being a major component of the philosophy, that this...this...delivers criticism. It doesn't.

And if Deutsch says different, I would ask him to point to the really major concessions that he has made in constructing this philosophy. Or is the story that Deutsch got everything right beginning to end?

It's just never happened. This has all been on a tiny scale. It's like Deutsch and 3 or 4 others, all of them likeminded from the start. It just can't work like that and be consistent with its own philosophy.

Don't forget, this philosophy claims to trump Science. This is now science. Deutsch rejects all the *evolved* ways Science has found to keep the steer on the right path to objective reality. And in their place he has put a conception of criticism that has never actually been applied to his own philosophy in any dramatic way, and never applied to the *structure* of the philosophy and whether that structure actually puts up large barriers to criticism. I'm not even sure popperians know what I'm talking about when I mention things like structural barriers, but it's very common and ubiquitious. Ever heard of non-tariff barriers?

OK back to this MWI thing. I will reflect on what you say. But I would really like you to just take 10 steps back, and look at all the possible options, right across the scientific frontier, for how QM might come to be explained.

And I would like you to drop the popperian standard for a moment, and use a practical standard. Judge which approach would be better, in terms of:

- How many outstanding scientific barriers the solution *potentially* clears up at the same time.

- Whether that avenue of enquiry *promises* falsification events at regular stages along the way.

- The potential for research to have unexpected knock on relevance into other sciences...which note could also lead to developments that eventually worked their back into the mainline research as either criticisms or as new energy in the form of insights that strengthened research.

Use that criteria for a moment. Judge MWI, the last 50 years of it, with that criteria.

And then try on my QM <--> Big Bang formula. You don't have be able to see how that would proceed. Not on this criteria. The only question is whether....since as you say yourself "who knows?"....then just comparing the two routes based on which one is most promising to rule itself out, or lead to dramatic progress.

And then answer me this. Is it reasonable, that given the unfalsiability of MWI, all other avenues that may produce falsifiability should be thoroughly explored, before accepting MWI and putting that at the centre of things?

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-31 15:22:03 UTC

Post by hibbsa
**
Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you have a link?

Sorry, you asked for a link. Here's a nice bit from the Wikipedia article
on the Schroedinger Wave Equation:

The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the possible wave
functions of a system and how they dynamically change in time. However, the
Schrödinger equation does not directly say *what*, exactly, the wave
function is. Interpretations of quantum
mechanics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics>
address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the
underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
An important aspect is the relationship between the Schrödinger equation and
wavefunction collapse <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse>.
In the oldest Copenhagen
interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation>,
particles follow the Schrödinger equation *except* during wavefunction
collapse, during which they behave entirely differently. The advent of quantum
decoherence theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence> allowed
alternative approaches (such as theEverett many-worlds
interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation>
and consistent histories<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories>),
wherein the Schrödinger equation is *always* satisfied, and wavefunction
collapse should be explained as a consequence of the Schrödinger equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

I also liked this quote from the same article:

Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to
derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger.

Richard Feynman[25]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#cite_note-25>
--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-31 15:49:02 UTC

Post by hibbsa
**
Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you have a link?

[Sorry for the multiple replies -- it's one of those days.]

Also I assume you've been through the Wikipedia MWI page, but just in case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation
And of course Price's classic FAQ: http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hibbsa

2013-08-31 17:02:55 UTC

Post by hibbsa
**
Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you have a link?

Sorry, you asked for a link. Here's a nice bit from the Wikipedia article
The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the possible wave
functions of a system and how they dynamically change in time. However, the
Schrödinger equation does not directly say *what*, exactly, the wave
function is. Interpretations of quantum
mechanics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics>
address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the
underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
An important aspect is the relationship between the Schrödinger equation and
wavefunction collapse <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse>.
In the oldest Copenhagen
interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation>,
particles follow the Schrödinger equation *except* during wavefunction
collapse, during which they behave entirely differently. The advent of quantum
decoherence theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence> allowed
alternative approaches (such as theEverett many-worlds
interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation>
and consistent histories<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories>),
wherein the Schrödinger equation is *always* satisfied, and wavefunction
collapse should be explained as a consequence of the Schrödinger equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
"Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to
derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger."
Richard Feynman[25]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#cite_note-25>
--
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gary - I know MWI People are adamant that whatever belongs to QM belongs to them also. But I don't personally agree with that. Theories earn their rigour, and QM earned it, while MWI never has.

The SWE doesn't require the MWI, and the addition of MWI adds no new value to the equation. The equation doesn't do something that it didn't do before.

Certainly MWI can define itself as SWE, just as an object flying around Venus might reasonably define itself in terms of Newton's gravitational equations.

But QM came out of a hard scientific progression. MWI is one of the interpretations. QM is a set of equations. It's probably the most highly respected work in science of all time. MWI isn't even on the same planet as tht sort of accomplishment.

I honestly find it appalling how MWI people try to beef MWI by telling folk its mathematical and so on. It's really misleureading. Young people are going to be left with and enduring impression of MWI thst isn't true. MWI needs to earn its stripes. If you want MWI to be a set of equations, work for it. Earn it :o)

Gary Oberbrunner

2013-08-31 19:27:15 UTC

Post by hibbsa
**
Gary - I know MWI People are adamant that whatever belongs to QM belongs
to them also. But I don't personally agree with that. Theories earn their
rigour, and QM earned it, while MWI never has.

Fair point. The Transactional interpretation and others are still in play.
But I don't think anyone takes Copenhagen as a serious description of
reality anymore.

Post by hibbsa
The SWE doesn't require the MWI, and the addition of MWI adds no new value
to the equation. The equation doesn't do something that it didn't do
before.

You're right, there are several other possible interpretations of the SWE.
Some of the refs I've sent discuss them. I've said before, you can deny
causality, or FTL communication, or a single-outcome universe. Take your
pick. You just can't have all of them, due to QM and Bell.

But just to be clear, MWI is not an "addition" to the SWE. It just says it
literally describes reality. The SWE by itself is just an equation for
predicting the future from the present. It takes no position on reality of
its terms. Collapse, on the other hand, _is_ an addition to the SWE.

Post by hibbsa
Certainly MWI can define itself as SWE, just as an object flying around
Venus might reasonably define itself in terms of Newton's gravitational
equations.
But QM came out of a hard scientific progression. MWI is one of the
interpretations. QM is a set of equations. It's probably the most highly
respected work in science of all time. MWI isn't even on the same planet as
tht sort of accomplishment.

No, it's arguably a consequence or followup to it, similarly to how
genetics was a followup or consequence of clever people thinking hard
enough about evolution. Definitely not on the same level, but pretty
amazing nonetheless. Copernicus, for instance, discovering that the sun
doesn't orbit the earth, opened up quite a lot of new frontiers despite not
having a complete theory. Galileo and others stood on his shoulders. I see
MWI similarly.

Post by hibbsa
I honestly find it appalling how MWI people try to beef MWI by telling
folk its mathematical and so on. It's really misleureading. Young people
are going to be left with and enduring impression of MWI thst isn't true.
MWI needs to earn its stripes. If you want MWI to be a set of equations,
work for it. Earn it :o)

I'd like to. Need more time. Lots of progress is being made in quantum
computation, quantum cryptography, extending superposition into macro
realms, and so on -- but more is needed of course.

But that said, I do think you misunderstand MWI from a scientific
standpoint. It's not as radical as you think. It's just a way to
understand the results of the SWE that makes more sense, is much more
intuitive, and allows us to make more rapid progress. Deutsch makes it
into some kind of philosophical revolution, because that sells books I
guess, but to me it's squarely in the tradition of Copernicus, Newton,
Galileo, and Einstein. Sure, it posits that the universe is a lot bigger
than we thought. But so what? We keep discovering that. Always have,
always will.

--
Gary

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard Ruquist

2013-08-08 11:45:53 UTC

Post by Ismail Atalay
**

Post by hibbsa
I see this as really key to understanding the wider worldview expressed

by Popperians.

Post by hibbsa
The big mistake I notice from non-popperians regarding MWI are the moral

implications. For them, typically, the implication is that there is no
morality because everything that can >happen will happen somewhere, with
nothing special attached to what happens 'here'.

Post by hibbsa
The reality is clearly different, and, I think....possibly this is the

source of the attachment of Popperians to the counter-intuitive.

Post by hibbsa
The true moral implications are actually really stunning and profound.

Definitely putting morality to the centre of everything...above even
physical reality itself in a way.

Post by hibbsa
Only by living purposefully...being consistent...being philosophically

convincing

Post by hibbsa
to me.
The whole premise of morality (at least in the classical sense) is based
on moral agents making choices in the way they act (out of multiple
options) and their choices making a meaningful existential and
circumstantial difference in themselves and in the world they live. In

MWI

Post by hibbsa
world, the moral agent's choice looses its significance. Actually the

moral

Post by hibbsa
agent him/herself looses its significance and meaning.
In MWI, there are infinite number of moral agents and they do choose

every

Post by hibbsa
possible option anyway in infinite number of universes. Why would the
choice of one particular self in one of the infinite number of universes
make a meaningful difference from the perspective of multiverse

existence?
I would say that it makes an infinitesimal difference.

Post by hibbsa
We know all possible universes do exist right?

Yes, and each of them has a measure in the multiverse (roughly a
"probability" if you want to see it in a different way).

Post by hibbsa
And they do not have any superiority or uniqueness with respect to others
according to MWI. There is nothing special in any of the universes. We

can

Post by hibbsa
not say one universe would be "better" than the other.
Or should we say it? There would be universes which are "better" than
others from consistency, purposefulness and correctness perspective.

Shall

Post by hibbsa
we try to be in the best possible universe? Why I would have such
motivation if I already know that all other lower morality universes

would

Post by hibbsa
exist in parallel whatever I choose and in the end I am not making any
difference from the overall existential perspective?

My opinion is that the "measure" of a universe in the multiverse is a
snooker to make MWI agree with experiment.
Richard Ruquist

hibbsa

2013-08-08 19:12:45 UTC