Re: R/ASSA query

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
> > Rex Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> What caused it to exist?
> >>
> >
> > Who said it needs a cause?
>
> Why this reality as opposed to nothing?  Given the principle of
> sufficient reason, wouldn't "nothingness" be the expected state of
> things?
>

Imagine you and I are at two ends of a computer terminal, and you know I am
about to send you a message.  The message encoding is such that there are
two parts, where the first part indicates the message length, and the second
the message.

Notice that before I send any information, the possibility for the message I
might send is unlimited.  You know neither the size nor the content.

As you begin to receive my message, information I send you isn't giving you
anything new, or creating any new possibility, instead it is restricting
that possibility, telling you what the message is not from among all the
infinite possibilities it might have been.

It might be clearer to see how this works considering the multi-verse.  If I
tell you I have a cup on my desk, but not what color it is, you can safely
assume copies of you exist in various branches where it could be any color,
blue, red, yellow, etc.  But if I then tell you it is indeed red, then that
just restricted possibility.

Now apply this concept to the question of why the universe exists, why
something rather than nothing.  What is simpler, nothing existing, or no
restrictions on what exists?  Using that message transfer example, to send
you an empty message requires I send you 1 bit, it would be the bit '0',
indicating the message is zero-length, followed by empty 0-bit long message.
 However, what if I sent no message at all?  That would take 0 bits, and all
possibilities remain open.  Think of it as: is it easier for God to command
that nothing exists, or easier for him to say nothing at all?

This idea is explained in greater detail in Russel Standish's "Theory of
Nothing".


>
> But, given that reality exists, why are things this way as opposed to
> some other way?
>
>
If we follow from the assumption we were led to above, that everything
existing is simpler than nothing existing then the laws of physics are
determined by virtue of your ability to observe the universe around you.
 Other observers exist in other universes, with different physical laws, and
also rightly ask why these laws?  The Anthropic principle holds that all
observers find themselves in environments compatible with their existence,
so these laws are what they are because they allowed conscious observers to
evolve to become aware.


> "St. Augustine observed that if someone were to stand barefoot on the
> beach for all eternity, then his footmark on the sand would be eternal
> too, but nonetheless it would still have its cause – the foot making
> it." -  M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe
>
>
>
Concepts such as time, and cause and effect only exist to those inside the
universe.  Outside of the universe it would be possible to have a 4-d view
of the the entire evolution of the universe.  In this view it would be a
static block.  Think of characters in a movie, with things changing frame by
frame, but if the characters could jump outside the movie they are in they
would see they exist on a fixed DVD, with all frames simultaneously
existing.  They would then see that a question such as what started the
movie playing from the beginning makes no sense, however it would still a
legitimate question to ask where did this DVD come from?


> Further, to quote Roger Scruton on the same topic:
>
> “Suppose we were to accept the big bang hypothesis concerning the
> origin of the universe. Only a short-sighted person would think that
> we have then answered the question of how the world began. For what
> caused the bang? Any answer will suppose that something already
> existed. So the hypothesis cannot explain the origin of things. The
> quest for an origin leads us forever backwards into the past. But
> either it is unsatisfiable- in which case, how does cosmology explain
> the existence of the world? - or it comes to rest in the postulation
> of a causa sui - in which case, we have left the scientific question
> unanswered and taking refuge in theology. Science itself pushes us
> towards the antinomy, by forcing us always to the limits of nature.”
>
>
This question is more akin to asking why does the DVD exist?  The best
answer I have found comes from extending arithmetical realism, the idea that
things such as numbers exist, without cause, timelessly.  One school of
thought believes that numbers are simply ideas and human inventions, but I
disagree.  There are an infinite number of facts one could state about the
number 3, yet of course no single mind in this universe could hold all those
facts.  Should that imply that facts which haven't been in someone's head
are not true, or that numbers too big for anyone to have thought of don

Re: Everything List Survey

[Jason Resch]

There have now been 26 responses.  This will be the final time I collect the
results to send out, so for now the poll can be considered closed.

In summary:

65% of people believe who took the survey believe everything exists, with an
equal percentage accepting mathematical realism.  Slightly more, 73% believe
in arithmetical realism, and 69% believe a digital computer can be
conscious.  52% apparently believe Bruno's description of the physical word
as an infinity of computations, while 32% believe it digital and computable,
and 16% believing it to be continuous.  60% believe that the measure of OMs
plays a role in what they experience.

Regarding OMs, no one thought their next is randomly selected from among all
OMs, as ASSA does, while 23% chose RSSA.  37% thought it was meaningless to
consider a next OM, with 19% believing they are but a single OM without a
next, and 15% believing they are all OMs.  On this question 42% did not
choose any of these options and chose other, making it the most popular
choice.

Regarding reality, 8% take a materialist view, not believing in the reality
of consciousness, while 23% take the opposite approach and believing
consciousness is all that reality is.  50% believe it is some combination
and 19% believe it is something else (one saying he doesn't know, another
sating combinations of tronnies, and another logico-mathematics).

The question that had the highest level of agreement was the preference of
the MWI to CI, at 81%, with 73% believing in some form of immortality.

On consciousness:
96% believe they are conscious
88% believe other humans and intelligent enough aliens are conscious
80% believe dolphins, apes, and cats are conscious
77% believe dogs are conscious (who is the cat lover who thinks dogs are
zombies?)
73% believe mice are conscious
61% believe shrimp, spiders, and ants are conscious
42% believe ant coolonies are conscious
38% believe thermostats are conscious
34% believe web-browsers are conscious (Is reading bits from a web server
different from reading the temperature?)
30% believe rocks are conscious

On time, 73% take a block time perspective, while 19% believe in presentism,
and 8% in possibilism (past and present only exist).  Was there anyone who
believed everything exists, but not in block time?

Thanks to everyone for your participation.


Jason

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Torgny Tholerus  wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
>
>  2010/1/14 Stathis Papaioannou :
>>
>>
>>
>>> Interesting so far:
>>> - people are about evenly divided on the question of whether computers
>>> can be conscious
>>> - no-one really knows what to make of OM's
>>> - more people believe cats are conscious than dogs
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, and one person does not believe that they are conscious! Come on,
>> who's the zombie?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's me.
>
> (The question on whether computers can be conscious, should have three
> alternatives:
>
> 1)  Both computers and humans can be conscious.
> 2)  Humans, but not computers can be conscious.
> 3)  Neither humans nor computers can be conscious.
>
> (The alternative: Computers, but not humans can be conscious, is not
> needed...))
>
> --
> Torgny Tholerus
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
Title: FreeOnlineSurveys.com View Results
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
Results for: Everything List Survey 
   
			
 
   
  
 
   
   
 1) I believe that everything exists.  PercentageResponsesTrue
65.4%17False 
34.6%9Total responses:262) I believe in mathematical realism. (All self-consistent mathematical objects are real)  PercentageResponsesTrue
65.4%17False 
34.6%9Total responses:263) I believe in arithmatical realism (At a minimum, the integers have their own objective reality)  PercentageResponsesTrue
73.1%19False 
26.9%7Total responses:264) I believe the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is preferable to the copenhagen interpretation.  PercentageResponsesTrue
80.8%21False 
19.2%5Total responses:265) I believe in quantum (or some other) form of immortality.  PercentageResponsesTrue
73.1%19False 
26.9%7Total responses:266) I believe reality includes:  PercentageResponsesMathematical, Material, or Physical structures7.72Consciousness and thought23.16Some combination of both50.013Other19.25Total responses:267) I believe that with the right software a digital computer can be conscious  PercentageResponsesTrue
69.2%18False 
30.8%8Total responses:268) I believe my next observer moment   PercentageResponsesis a meaningless concept, I am an eternal thought19.25is a meaningles

Re: R/ASSA query

[Rex Allen]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> Rex Allen wrote:
>> It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
>> as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
>> forward from first principles.
>>
>
> That's because taking material processes as fundamental has led to great
> success, while taking consciousness as fundamental led to mysticism.

Mysticism isn't the inevitable result.

Our observations certainly exist, even if they are uncaused and
fundamental. They certainly seem to have a certain order and
consistency, even if there is no real reason for this. The scientific
method can still be applied to look for and analyze recurring patterns
in our observations, and it makes as much sense to do this as not.  We
have to do something to pass the time, after all.


>
>> The possible existence of matter in the form of quarks and electrons
>> (or strings, or quantum fields, or whatever) is consistent with our
>> observations, but obviously we have no direct knowledge of quarks and
>> electrons or the rest. Their existence, and the physical laws
>> associated with them, are inferred from our observations.
>>
>> Even something right in front of me, like my chair, I still only know
>> through my conscious experience. I see a chair here, but I don’t know
>> that the chair actually exists. I could be dreaming, for instance, in
>> which case the chair exists entirely within my mind.
>>
>> Now, the world that I perceive is pretty stable and orderly. What
>> could explain all of that order?
>
> An underlying objective reality.  That's why we tend to think there is a
> reality and dreams, which are less consistent, are not real.

Okay, an underlying objective reality causes the order in what we
experience - but then what causes the order in this underlying
objective reality?

You haven't answered any questions...you've just rephrased them in a
way that suggests that they've been answered.

What causes the order that we experience?  Objective Reality.

What is Objective Reality?  That which causes the order we experience.

Circles, sophistry, and question-begging.


>> For a random process, if you wait long enough you can get any relative
>> frequency of events for any desired sample size, correct?
>>
>
> No.  The randomness of radioactive decay is confirmed by observing it obeys
> Poisson statistics.  It could have been falsified by observing different
> statistics.  I think you are confusing random with "uniformly distributed
> random".  "Random" doesn't mean everything is equally probable; only that
> some things have probabilities between 0 and 1.

If I take a radioactive decay source, map the decay events into an 4
bit number, then look for a sequence of 1000 numbers in which the
number "0" comes up 90% of the time (instead of 6.25% of the time as
would be expected for a uniform distribution), I will never, ever,
ever observe this relative frequency?

And there is a 0% chance that the very first 1000 numbers will exhibit
this relative frequency?

As I said, given enough time and enough attempts, it would seem to be
inevitable.  And this would hold equally true for sample sizes of
1, or 10, or whatever.  You'd just have to wait longer
(probably).

So, if we waiting long enough (very very very very very long),
eventually we should see a 1000 year period where the randomness of a
particular radioactive decay source was disconfirmed...it would not be
observed as obeying Poisson statistics, right?


>> Well…ultimately, nothing can explain
>> it. Ultimately you have to conclude that my perceptions just are that
>> way.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what "ultimately" means in this context.  I asked before what
> you consider a "real" explanation.  Is it the same as "ultimate"
> explanation?  Do we have to *know* with certainty the explanation is true?

An "ultimate explanation" I guess would be a final explanation, the
last bit of information that can (even in principle) be provided which
is relevant to the question posed.

I'd say that "there is no reason for it, it just is that way" is
pretty final.  And, for me at least, does produce some feeling of
understanding.


>> In other words, what caused the cause of my orderly perceptions? And
>> what caused that cause? And so on.
>>
>> As I said in an earlier post on another thread, you either have to
>> postulate an infinite chain of causes, or a first cause.
>
> Or you can say, I don't know yet.

Do you see room for a third option?  Or have an intuition that there
may be a third option?


>> and this inexplicableness of it seems to be necessary, not
>> contingent.
>>
>> It seems to me that nothing is lost in concluding that consciousness
>> is fundamental,
>
> A lot is lost, .e.g all of physical science, unless you can show that it can
> be reformulated purely in terms of conscious events - which is what the
> Positivists tried.

I don't see why anything has to be reformulated in terms of conscious events.

Our consci

Re: R/ASSA query

[Brent Meeker]

Rex Allen wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
  

Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
'on' what):

"One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?"

the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
(are) vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 'descriptions'? There
are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental descriptions floating around
that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll back ALL with ALL consequences
included and arrive at a "pristine primitive" - if at all possible. Even in
such case: OUR judgement is completely blurred by the interpretations our
mind(set) formulates anything into, based on its limited computing (we call
it 'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the
previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) logic
what we cannot surpass (our mind?).

So how do we distinguish "What - I S - ?"




Let me just through this passage about Kant out there, to see if it
gets any traction with you:

“According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the
distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the
appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the
(presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our
synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not
the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can
experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our
concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself
(Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our
experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

Thus, on Kant’s view, the most fundamental laws of nature, like the
truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no
effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the
structure of the world as we experience it. By applying the pure forms
of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of the understanding, we
achieve a systematic view of the phenomenal realm but learn nothing of
the noumenal realm. Math and science are certainly true of the
phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

By the nature of reason itself, we are required to suppose our own
existence as substantial beings and the possibility of our free action
in a world of causal regularity. The absence of any formal
justification for these notions makes it impossible for us to claim
that we know them to be true, but it can in no way diminish the depth
of our belief that they are.”

-- Rex
  
I think Kant over generalizes and from "We can't know the ding an sich" 
to "We can't know anything (about reality)."  If there is no connection 
between what we can observe and Kant's noumena, then his ding is otiose 
and should be sliced off by Ockham's razor.  His noumena is like the 
deist God as an explanation of the origin of the universe - it adds 
nothing but mysticism.


Brent
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: R/ASSA query

[Brent Meeker]

Rex Allen wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
  

Rex Allen wrote:


What caused it to exist?

  

Who said it needs a cause?



Why this reality as opposed to nothing?  Given the principle of
sufficient reason, wouldn't "nothingness" be the expected state of
things?

But, given that reality exists, why are things this way as opposed to
some other way?

"St. Augustine observed that if someone were to stand barefoot on the
beach for all eternity, then his footmark on the sand would be eternal
too, but nonetheless it would still have its cause – the foot making
it." -  M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe


Further, to quote Roger Scruton on the same topic:

“Suppose we were to accept the big bang hypothesis concerning the
origin of the universe. Only a short-sighted person would think that
we have then answered the question of how the world began. For what
caused the bang? Any answer will suppose that something already
existed. So the hypothesis cannot explain the origin of things. The
quest for an origin leads us forever backwards into the past. But
either it is unsatisfiable- in which case, how does cosmology explain
the existence of the world? - or it comes to rest in the postulation
of a causa sui - in which case, we have left the scientific question
unanswered and taking refuge in theology. Science itself pushes us
towards the antinomy, by forcing us always to the limits of nature.”


And a final quote for Wittgenstein:

“It’s not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.” - Proposition 6.44, Logico Tractatus Philosophicus


  

Given determinism, what is the significance of a prediction generated
from within the deterministic system?

  

That your method of prediction has some truth to it.



Even if you accept that various configurations of matter can result in
conscious experiences, there's no reason to think that the experiences
will in any way reveal anything about the underlying system that
"caused" them, is there?
  


It could if the experiences are perceptions of  material processes which 
can be correlated with conscious experiences - as when neurosurgeons 
electrically excite sites on the brain and at the same time the patient 
reports his conscious experience.


  

Given randomness, what is the significance of prediction generated
from within the random system?

  

That your method of prediction will yield the right relative frequencies.



For randomness there are no "right" relative frequencies, are there?
Relative frequencies are just the number of times a particular event
occurred divided by the total number of trials.

For a random process, if you wait long enough you can get any relative
frequency of events for any desired sample size, correct?
  


No.  The randomness of radioactive decay is confirmed by observing it 
obeys Poisson statistics.  It could have been falsified by observing 
different statistics.  I think you are confusing random with "uniformly 
distributed random".  "Random" doesn't mean everything is equally 
probable; only that some things have probabilities between 0 and 1.

Isn't it meaningless to speak of predicting anything about a random process?
  


Certainly not.  Stochastic processes are used in prediction all the 
time.  If you fly on an airliner you're relying on the engineer's 
stochastic prediction of stress cycles due to turbulence.



  

Why does it have the aspects that it has?  How is it that it gives
rise to conscious experience?

  

My theory is that physical processes of great complexity corresponding to
what we call information processing and which include the construction of
narrative histories in memory instantiate consciousness of a human type.  I
think when we understand these processes and the brain better we will come
to understand there are different degrees and kinds of consciousness and the
term isn't technically useful.



You seem to have no problem with the existence of matter as a given.
No explanation needed, apparently.  Why judge conscious experience by
a different standard?

It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
forward from first principles.
  


That's because taking material processes as fundamental has led to great 
success, while taking consciousness as fundamental led to mysticism.



So we start with our observations, and then we construct narratives
that are consistent with what we have observed. These narratives may
be useful in analyzing recurring patterns in the records of our past
observations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true of
anything that exists outside of our observations.
  

Sure, that's why they are models and theories - not THE TRUTH.


The possible existence of matter in the form of quarks and electrons
(or strings, or quantum fields, or whatever) is consistent with our
observations, but 

Re: R/ASSA query

[Rex Allen]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes  wrote:
> Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
> 'on' what):
>
> "One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?"
>
> the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
> (are) vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 'descriptions'? There
> are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental descriptions floating around
> that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll back ALL with ALL consequences
> included and arrive at a "pristine primitive" - if at all possible. Even in
> such case: OUR judgement is completely blurred by the interpretations our
> mind(set) formulates anything into, based on its limited computing (we call
> it 'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the
> previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) logic
> what we cannot surpass (our mind?).
>
> So how do we distinguish "What - I S - ?"
>

Let me just through this passage about Kant out there, to see if it
gets any traction with you:

“According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the
distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the
appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the
(presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our
synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not
the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can
experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our
concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself
(Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our
experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

Thus, on Kant’s view, the most fundamental laws of nature, like the
truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no
effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the
structure of the world as we experience it. By applying the pure forms
of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of the understanding, we
achieve a systematic view of the phenomenal realm but learn nothing of
the noumenal realm. Math and science are certainly true of the
phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

By the nature of reason itself, we are required to suppose our own
existence as substantial beings and the possibility of our free action
in a world of causal regularity. The absence of any formal
justification for these notions makes it impossible for us to claim
that we know them to be true, but it can in no way diminish the depth
of our belief that they are.”

-- Rex
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: R/ASSA query

[Rex Allen]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> What caused it to exist?
>>
>
> Who said it needs a cause?

Why this reality as opposed to nothing?  Given the principle of
sufficient reason, wouldn't "nothingness" be the expected state of
things?

But, given that reality exists, why are things this way as opposed to
some other way?

"St. Augustine observed that if someone were to stand barefoot on the
beach for all eternity, then his footmark on the sand would be eternal
too, but nonetheless it would still have its cause – the foot making
it." -  M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe


Further, to quote Roger Scruton on the same topic:

“Suppose we were to accept the big bang hypothesis concerning the
origin of the universe. Only a short-sighted person would think that
we have then answered the question of how the world began. For what
caused the bang? Any answer will suppose that something already
existed. So the hypothesis cannot explain the origin of things. The
quest for an origin leads us forever backwards into the past. But
either it is unsatisfiable- in which case, how does cosmology explain
the existence of the world? - or it comes to rest in the postulation
of a causa sui - in which case, we have left the scientific question
unanswered and taking refuge in theology. Science itself pushes us
towards the antinomy, by forcing us always to the limits of nature.”


And a final quote for Wittgenstein:

“It’s not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.” - Proposition 6.44, Logico Tractatus Philosophicus


>>
>> Given determinism, what is the significance of a prediction generated
>> from within the deterministic system?
>>
>
> That your method of prediction has some truth to it.

Even if you accept that various configurations of matter can result in
conscious experiences, there's no reason to think that the experiences
will in any way reveal anything about the underlying system that
"caused" them, is there?


>> Given randomness, what is the significance of prediction generated
>> from within the random system?
>>
>
> That your method of prediction will yield the right relative frequencies.

For randomness there are no "right" relative frequencies, are there?
Relative frequencies are just the number of times a particular event
occurred divided by the total number of trials.

For a random process, if you wait long enough you can get any relative
frequency of events for any desired sample size, correct?

Isn't it meaningless to speak of predicting anything about a random process?



>> Why does it have the aspects that it has?  How is it that it gives
>> rise to conscious experience?
>>
>
> My theory is that physical processes of great complexity corresponding to
> what we call information processing and which include the construction of
> narrative histories in memory instantiate consciousness of a human type.  I
> think when we understand these processes and the brain better we will come
> to understand there are different degrees and kinds of consciousness and the
> term isn't technically useful.

You seem to have no problem with the existence of matter as a given.
No explanation needed, apparently.  Why judge conscious experience by
a different standard?

It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
forward from first principles.

So we start with our observations, and then we construct narratives
that are consistent with what we have observed. These narratives may
be useful in analyzing recurring patterns in the records of our past
observations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true of
anything that exists outside of our observations.

The possible existence of matter in the form of quarks and electrons
(or strings, or quantum fields, or whatever) is consistent with our
observations, but obviously we have no direct knowledge of quarks and
electrons or the rest. Their existence, and the physical laws
associated with them, are inferred from our observations.

Even something right in front of me, like my chair, I still only know
through my conscious experience. I see a chair here, but I don’t know
that the chair actually exists. I could be dreaming, for instance, in
which case the chair exists entirely within my mind.

Now, the world that I perceive is pretty stable and orderly. What
could explain all of that order? Well…ultimately, nothing can explain
it. Ultimately you have to conclude that my perceptions just are that
way.

For instance, let’s say that I explain the order that I perceive by
postulating that a world of matter and energy with governing laws
exists independently of me. Okay, now we just need to explain this
external world. Where did the matter and energy come from? What causes
the governing laws? Why this kind of matter and energy and physical
laws as opposed to some other?

In other words, what caused the cause of

Re: R/ASSA query

[Brent Meeker]

John Mikes wrote:
Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never 
mind 'on' what):
 
/"One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?"/


It was Rex who wrote that.
// 
/the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real 
existence' *(are)* vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 
'descriptions'? There are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental 
descriptions floating around that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll 
back ALL with ALL consequences included and arrive at a "pristine 
primitive" - if at all possible. Even in such case: _OUR judgement_ is 
completely blurred by the interpretations our mind(set) formulates 
anything into, based on its limited computing (we call it 
'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the 
previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) 
logic what we cannot surpass (our mind?). /
// 
/So how do we distinguish "What - I S - ?"/


I don't think we do.  We formulate our theory/model of the world.  If it 
works we provisionally accept it as a good description of the world.  It 
might be true, but even it is we'll never *know* with certainty it is; 
it will always be provisional for us.  And the lesson of history is that 
it will be subsumed with a better, more accurate or more comprehesive 
theory in the future.


Brent


/ /
// 
/Bruno makes it easy: *"leave it to the universal machine"* - but I am 
afraid that anyone of us imagining a universal machine and its given 
information (interview?) (no matter if accepting the exclusivity of 
arithmetical aspects, or not) still hovers within our presently 
applicable HUMAN terms and explanations of OUR mind. It was different 
for Thomas Aquinas, for Newton, for Moses, or the Vedaic sages, but WE 
have OUR vocabulary and meaning-glossary to use, following our present 
'ways' - and we use it that way. /
// 
/Excuse me if I do not refer to the rest of your very valuable post, I 
just wanted to shoot at a presumption that bothers my agnosticism./
// 
/Best regards/
// 
/John Mikes/
// 
// 



 
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Rex Allen > wrote:


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
> Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
>> mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There is no real distinction between the different
possibilities you
>>> mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a
single
>>> individual travelling in the forward direction through time.
>>>
>>
>> How did evolution do that?  By what means?  Using what causal
powers?
>>
>> Evolution can't really be used as an explanation for anything
can it?
>>  Evolution is just a useful fictional narrative that helps us think
>> about what we observe.
>>
>> For example, if deterministic physicalism is true, then the initial
>> configuration of matter at the universe’s first instant, plus the
>> causal laws that govern the subsequent behavior of this matter as
>> applied over 13.7 billion years fully determines the current
state of
>> the universe today.
>>
>> In this case, there is nothing for evolution to do. It is purely a
>> description of what we observe, not an explanation of it. The
state of
>> the world is today was fixed by the initial conditions plus the
causal
>> laws of physics.  Any explanation for the way you are lies
there, not
>> with "evolution".
>>
>> There is no “competition” for survival. There is no “selection”.
>> Instead, events involving fundamental particles unfold as they
must…in
>> the only way that they can.
>>
>> When we say “competition among creatures”, what we really mean
is “it
>> is as though there were competition among creatures”. Because what
>> really exists are fundamental particles (quantum fields, strings,
>> whatever), not “creatures”. It is only in our minds that we take
>> collections of quarks and electrons and form them into creatures.
>>
>> Since they aren't fundamental laws, evolution and natural selection
>> have no causal power.  We just speak of them as if they did.
>>
>> Further, even allowing for some kind of quantum randomness still
>> doesn’t give “evolution” anything to do. Though it does muddy the
>> water a bit.
>>
>> Right?  Or wrong?
>>
>

> You invoke physical determinism and causal laws - but you can look
> at those too as "merely descriptions".

One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?

If the current state of the universe is a necessary consequence of
it's initial state, then "causal laws" are what provide the necessary
aspect of the relationship.  In this case, any question about why
things are the way they are

Re: R/ASSA query

[Brent Meeker]

Rex Allen wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
  

There is some reality independent of us but which we invent
theories about which refer to some aspects of this reality.



Is this reality deterministic or random?  

Random.


What caused it to exist?
  


Who said it needs a cause?


Why does it have the aspects that it has?  How is it that it gives
rise to conscious experience?
  


My theory is that physical processes of great complexity corresponding 
to what we call information processing and which include the 
construction of narrative histories in memory instantiate consciousness 
of a human type.  I think when we understand these processes and the 
brain better we will come to understand there are different degrees and 
kinds of consciousness and the term isn't technically useful.

So it seems to me that we have two options:

1) We can take the equations of physics as being in some way true of
an inexplicably existing independent reality.
  


We only take them a provisionally true and/or approximate.

OR

2) We can take the equations as being true of the contents of our
conscious experience. Experience which itself is fundamental and
uncaused…and thus also inexplicable.

Ultimately, I don't see any way to choose between these two options.
  
Then maybe they are the same.  Sometimes there are two ways of 
mathematically expressing a theory that are provably identical (e.g. 
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schroedingers equation), yet one is 
much more fruitful.



BUT, option #2 has the benefit of greater simplicity.
  
But the ontology of physics refers to lots of things that are only very 
indirectly related to our conscious experience (like the Big Bang, and 
quarks).  I don't think (2) is simple or useful at all.  It is the 
extreme positivist philosophy which attempted to recast physics in terms 
only of relations between sense perceptions.  Mach was one its 
proponents and he refused to believe in atoms and considered them mere 
fictions because they couldn't be seen.  Now they can be "seen" by 
scanning tunneling microscopes.



Option #1 has the problem of explaining the existence and structure of
an independently existing universe/multiverse, 



I think you have a strange view of explanation.  We invent theories that 
described things and how they work.  If we find they have predictive 
power and are not contrary to experience we provisionally accept them 
and use them to make decisions and test newer theories.  An explanation 
doesn't have to explain everything in order to count as explanation.



PLUS also the problem
of explaining how this unconscious material world gives rise to
conscious experience…by which I mean qualia.
  


But #1 can do something to explain the events that make use believe 
other people exist and have experiences.  We can study them and their 
brains and how they function and make successful predictions about this 
or that will affect their qualia.  #2 can't predict anything except 
insofar as it can justify and take advantage of the success of #1.



Option #2 has the problem of explaining the existence and structure of
experience. But that’s it.

Note, however, that both options yield the same “ultimate
explanation”: Things just are the way they are.

The ultimate explanation for both is that there is no explanation for
the way things are.

So I’m not saying that the equations found in physics are wrong. I’m
just suggesting that they don’t mean what you think they mean.
  


What do you think I think they mean?


  

They do if they want a finite answer.



So you believe that the nature of reality is in some way infinite?


  

I would say that all that we can know are our perceptions, what we
consciously experience. From this we can derive all sorts of beliefs
about the way things *really* are. But these beliefs inevitably
involve unproved assumptions.

Therefore it seems to me that the fewer unproved assumptions, the
better. And it seems to me that the theory with the fewest of these is
that conscious experience is fundamental. Conscious experience is what
*really* exists and everything else is just an aspect of it.

  

Unfortunately that doesn't explain anything.



It's as good an explanation as anything you've provided.


  

It has no predictive power.



Ah, your fetish.

Given determinism, what is the significance of a prediction generated
from within the deterministic system?
  


That your method of prediction has some truth to it.


Given randomness, what is the significance of prediction generated
from within the random system?

  


That your method of prediction will yield the right relative frequencies.
  

 On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be a new flu virus
next year and it will be similar at the molecular level to the one this
year.



Same as happened last year.  And the year before.  Project that
forward, same as will happen next year.  Just come up with some
narrativ

Re: R/ASSA query

[Nick Prince]

On Jan 15, 6:35 am, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> 2010/1/15 Nick Prince :
>
> > 1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
> > world?
>
> There are branches where your mind gradually fades away to nothing.
> However, there are other branches where you start dementing then
> recover, as well as branches where you don't dement at all. It's the
> probability of being stuck in a branch where you incrementally dement
> but never actually reach total mindlessness that you have to worry
> about.
>
> > 2 Why is there any distinction between the RSSA and the ASSA. Can we
> > just not say that the RSSA is the (apparent) consequences of some non
> > uniform distribution over OM's accessed under the ASSA?
> > 3 Do you think this non uniform distribution is due to the laws of
> > phyisics or is physics the consequence of the distribution?
>
> The distribution of OM's is not required to be uniform under either
> the ASSA or the RSSA. The RSSA says that given you already exist, your
> successor OM will be sampled from a subset of OM's which have your
> present OM in their immediate subjective past. The distribution of
> OM's is due to the nature of whatever process gives rise to them,
> whether that is a single human brain in a single world cosmology, an
> ensemble of brains following the laws governing the multiverse, or the
> UD running in Platonia.
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou



Thank you Stathis.

You can see I am struggling with these self sampling assumptions.  I
just cannot get a handle on how to think about them.  I noticed in a
past post (Many pasts - not according to QM) you said:

>I attempted something like your water tank model of the multiverse with the
>game I describe here:
>http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m6608.html.
>My conclusion was that the relative measure is important in determining the
>successor OM (I think this is what you call the RSSA, although I prefer to
>spell it out when the idea is at all problematic), but the absolute measure
>makes no difference from the observer's point of view (is this a rejection
>of the ASSA?).

>One can imagine God shuffling all the instantiations of all the OM's
>associated with a particular observer and pulling out an OM at random, which
>will then more probably be an OM with higher absolute measure. But this is
>not how it works from the observer's point of view, contemplating his place
>in the multiverse. For a start, it is impossible to know what the absolute
>measure of an OM is, because it makes no first person difference. If it did,
>i.e. if multiple instantiations of an OM could somehow be distinguished,
>then by definition it is not the one OM.

I could not access the link you gave. Do you have another link to it
because I think I need an analogy to help me here. Jesse Mazer's was a
good one (and correct as far as I know?) but your ideas relating to
how the RSSA can be thought of in this analogy would be welcomed too.

Kind regards

Nick Prince





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: R/ASSA query

[John Mikes]

Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
'on' what):

*"One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?"*
**
*the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
(are) vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 'descriptions'? There
are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental descriptions floating around
that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll back ALL with ALL consequences
included and arrive at a "pristine primitive" - if at all possible. Even in
such case: OUR judgement is completely blurred by the interpretations our
mind(set) formulates anything into, based on its limited computing (we call
it 'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the
previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) logic
what we cannot surpass (our mind?). *
**
*So how do we distinguish "What - I S - ?" *
**
*Bruno makes it easy: "leave it to the universal machine" - but I am afraid
that anyone of us imagining a universal machine and its given information
(interview?) (no matter if accepting the exclusivity of arithmetical
aspects, or not) still hovers within our presently applicable HUMAN terms
and explanations of OUR mind. It was different for Thomas Aquinas, for
Newton, for Moses, or the Vedaic sages, but WE have OUR vocabulary and
meaning-glossary to use, following our present 'ways' - and we use it that
way. *
**
*Excuse me if I do not refer to the rest of your very valuable post, I just
wanted to shoot at a presumption that bothers my agnosticism.*
**
*Best regards*
**
*John Mikes*
**
**



On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Rex Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
> > Rex Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
> >>> mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
> >>> individual travelling in the forward direction through time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How did evolution do that?  By what means?  Using what causal powers?
> >>
> >> Evolution can't really be used as an explanation for anything can it?
> >>  Evolution is just a useful fictional narrative that helps us think
> >> about what we observe.
> >>
> >> For example, if deterministic physicalism is true, then the initial
> >> configuration of matter at the universe’s first instant, plus the
> >> causal laws that govern the subsequent behavior of this matter as
> >> applied over 13.7 billion years fully determines the current state of
> >> the universe today.
> >>
> >> In this case, there is nothing for evolution to do. It is purely a
> >> description of what we observe, not an explanation of it. The state of
> >> the world is today was fixed by the initial conditions plus the causal
> >> laws of physics.  Any explanation for the way you are lies there, not
> >> with "evolution".
> >>
> >> There is no “competition” for survival. There is no “selection”.
> >> Instead, events involving fundamental particles unfold as they must…in
> >> the only way that they can.
> >>
> >> When we say “competition among creatures”, what we really mean is “it
> >> is as though there were competition among creatures”. Because what
> >> really exists are fundamental particles (quantum fields, strings,
> >> whatever), not “creatures”. It is only in our minds that we take
> >> collections of quarks and electrons and form them into creatures.
> >>
> >> Since they aren't fundamental laws, evolution and natural selection
> >> have no causal power.  We just speak of them as if they did.
> >>
> >> Further, even allowing for some kind of quantum randomness still
> >> doesn’t give “evolution” anything to do. Though it does muddy the
> >> water a bit.
> >>
> >> Right?  Or wrong?
> >>
> >
>
> > You invoke physical determinism and causal laws - but you can look
> > at those too as "merely descriptions".
>
> One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?
>
> If the current state of the universe is a necessary consequence of
> it's initial state, then "causal laws" are what provide the necessary
> aspect of the relationship.  In this case, any question about why
> things are the way they are today can be "transformed" into a question
> about the initial state of the universe and the particular causal laws
> that govern it.  But what explains those things?  Presumably there is
> no explanation.  They just are that way.  So anything you say about
> them is merely a description of the way they are.
>
> BUT, if the current state of the universe could have been otherwise,
> even given it's initial state, then you are definitely correct, the
> "causal laws" are merely descriptions of how things happen to have
> happened.
>
> Surely there is some fact of the matter as to which of the above is
> the case, don't you think?  Though they both seem to lead to the same
> conclusion:  ultimately there is no explanation f