Law of excluded middle

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 12:53 am Occam's razor favors it too, because it doesn't posit collapse like Copenhagen does.
I almost forgot about it. Why would Occam's razor favor not collapsing wave function at the expense of explosion of zyllion of universes?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

@mkm

Your personal experience is irrelevant; you don't have to experience something to understand that it's true.

I said many, not all.

I'm not saying they're materially identical, I'm saying if they all fit the definition then they're all you.
If you want to define YOU in a weird way to exclude some of them, that's fine, but it doesn't mean there still won't be many worlds in which that definition holds true.
That sounds awfully arbitrary.
You can define yourself however you want, arbitrarily.
I may just say that any mkm without *my* current conscious is not me, since I am obsessed with possessing conscious, so other mkms wouldn't exist.
Then the next plank second you would no longer be you, because only that instant in the place and time would be you.

If that's what you prefer, that's fine.
I get that such a definition is needed to make it work for MWI sake,
No, such a definition is just a coherent way of talking about the concept of self, period.
but it doesn't relate in any way to anyone's experience. Nobody even perceives himself in that way.
If everybody perceived his or herself as a magical soul made by god that still wouldn't be a problem for atheistic materialism. What people assume about themselves isn't necessarily true, particularly when it's not logically coherent as a concept.
can you perceive something that cannot be perceived?
I think you mean conceive. It really doesn't matter what you can or can not conceive of.
In the same way we have no problem with Shrodinger's cat, but put yourself in the place of cat, and the conclusion of the experiment does not hold or it's nonsense.
Neither is a problem in MWI.
the collapse ("true" or apparent) of the wave function occurs upon our measurement, not due to interactions with other objects.
How do you think it's measured? Not with objects? Magically, Psychically?
Why would Occam's razor favor not collapsing wave function at the expense of explosion of zyllion of universes?
Either you don't understand Occam's razor, or don't understand MWI.

Exploding into more universes is not an assumption that's being added; it's something that is deduced from the small set of assumptions without collapse to stop it from happening.
Collapse is an added assumption, Occam's razor doesn't deal with your subjective perception of complexity, it deals with the number of assumptions.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm Your personal experience is irrelevant; you don't have to experience something to understand that it's true.
Take away your personal experience and you have nothing to work with. That's extraordinary claim and I'm kind of surprised that you have made it. Maybe you had something different in mind(?).
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm I said many, not all.
Still, how can you tell that from the place you are, if these universes are inaccessible? We can imagine that, of course, by putting ourselves in the shoes of the observe in the other universe, but that ignores the fact, that other universes are inaccessible for us, so it's not what we wanted to do.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm I'm not saying they're materially identical, I'm saying if they all fit the definition then they're all you.
If you want to define YOU in a weird way to exclude some of them, that's fine, but it doesn't mean there still won't be many worlds in which that definition holds true.
Whose definition exactly? If you could extract some copy of me from other universe and place it in front of me, wouldn't you distinguish me from the "other me"? Wouldn't you consider two of us as separate beings?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm You can define yourself however you want, arbitrarily.
It doesn't make sense. I can think of myself many things, but it doesn't change much. If I define myself as a teapot, I won't magically become one.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm Then the next plank second you would no longer be you, because only that instant in the place and time would be you.
Why do you assume that my current conscious is defined only for specific point in time? If you define a table in front of you, does this object that was a table in split second ago is no longer a table, because you didn't refresh its definition?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm No, such a definition is just a coherent way of talking about the concept of self, period.
I would like to see the reasoning behind it. That's a bold claim.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm If everybody perceived his or herself as a magical soul made by god that still wouldn't be a problem for atheistic materialism. What people assume about themselves isn't necessarily true, particularly when it's not logically coherent as a concept.
It doesn't apply here. You are the one that make assumptions about things inaccessible for our minds. To make your concepts work you have to even forego experience.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm I think you mean conceive. It really doesn't matter what you can or can not conceive of.
By this I meant occurs in mind as an idea, thought, stream of data, etc. It matters a great deal, because whatever we try to say about things that don't have such a property, we jabber.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm Neither is a problem in MWI.
You're wrong. That's a problem in physics in general.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm How do you think it's measured? Not with objects? Magically, Psychically?
I don't have a satisfying explanation, but I don't try to ignore it either.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 9:23 pm Either you don't understand Occam's razor, or don't understand MWI.

Exploding into more universes is not an assumption that's being added; it's something that is deduced from the small set of assumptions without collapse to stop it from happening.
Collapse is an added assumption, Occam's razor doesn't deal with your subjective perception of complexity, it deals with the number of assumptions.
It doesn't add collapse, but it adds quantum decoherence, and on top of that zyllions, maybe even uncountable number, of universes, which it has to assume to exist. MWI is not deduced, otherwise we wouldn't have other interpretations that work as well.

Anyway, as I said before, Occam's razor isn't the oracle. If it was, we would never crawled out of the solipsism. You can't claim that something is true and other things are not by waving the Occam's razor.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 am Take away your personal experience and you have nothing to work with.
Now THAT is an extreme claim.

We can use logical deduction to figure things out that we don't have direct experience with. If you deny that, then there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind on it.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 am Still, how can you tell that from the place you are, if these universes are inaccessible? We can imagine that, of course, by putting ourselves in the shoes of the observe in the other universe, but that ignores the fact, that other universes are inaccessible for us, so it's not what we wanted to do.
Even being as conservative as possible, somebody somewhere is occasionally measuring the spin of an electron, and while it's something that affects you practically not at all, it's still splitting the universe in two based on the results.

mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 am Whose definition exactly?
Yours, you get to define yourself.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amIf you could extract some copy of me from other universe and place it in front of me, wouldn't you distinguish me from the "other me"?
It's a nonsense hypothetical, because it's not possible; it violates the separation of those universes.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amWouldn't you consider two of us as separate beings?
As I said, the proper analogy is dogs: two different dogs are different beings, but they're both dogs. A Greyhound is not less of a dog than a Poodle.

Neither being is less you, but they are two instantiations of you (let's say we used some kind of matter replicating teleporter instead of speculating on drawing another you from another dimension).
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amIf I define myself as a teapot, I won't magically become one.
As I already said with the theist "I'm a soul" analogy, if you define yourself in an impossible or incorrect way, that suggests that you simply don't exist as you think you do.

Define yourself by any real boundaries, and we can say it's a coherent definition which distinguishes the you from the not you.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amWhy do you assume that my current conscious is defined only for specific point in time?
Because it's a specific configuration of information/relationships. That changes from moment to moment. Your consciousness now is not your consciousness yesterday.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amIf you define a table in front of you, does this object that was a table in split second ago is no longer a table, because you didn't refresh its definition?
If you define it by that precise configuration of subatomic particles, that would be true; the table's particles are in constant motion.
If you define it more broadly such that if an electron moves or a particle of dust falls off it it can still be the same table, then no.

For a very broad definition, also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amI would like to see the reasoning behind it. That's a bold claim.
It's a materialistic claim that doesn't treat consciousness as magical. Anything else is an extraordinary claim.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amYou're wrong. That's a problem in physics in general.
You don't seem to know that you're talking about in the rest of the post.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amI don't have a satisfying explanation, but I don't try to ignore it either.
Well, you should. If you're not offering up anything, maybe you should stop telling other people they're wrong?
You don't know, and that's fine. Stop at that. Don't be the militant agnostic jerk who tells everybody else that HE knows that THEY don't know.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amIt doesn't add collapse, but it adds quantum decoherence, and on top of that zyllions, maybe even uncountable number, of universes, which it has to assume to exist.
It doesn't add those, it takes the math and the known nature of waves at face value. That the universe is a wave function is simply a conclusion of logical deduction without any additional premises.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amMWI is not deduced, otherwise we wouldn't have other interpretations that work as well.
That's like saying the heliocentric model isn't deduced, otherwise we wouldn't have geocentric models that work just as well -- ignoring all of the elaborate ad hoc rules you have to tack on to force it to work.

This is why we have Occam's razor. You can always force another model to work by adding on enough absurd ad hoc rules. The existence of those models doesn't invalidate deduction from simpler rule sets.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:58 amAnyway, as I said before, Occam's razor isn't the oracle. If it was, we would never crawled out of the solipsism. You can't claim that something is true and other things are not by waving the Occam's razor.
So now you'll admit that other theories violate Occam's razor?

Occam's razor deals with probability, not absolute statements. You should prefer MWI due to that. It's more probably true, because other interpretations require additional assumptions that make them more likely to be false.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Now THAT is an extreme claim.
Not at all. Try to imagine what would happen to you (or anyone), if you had no senses at all. No sensible statements are possible in such a state and we have plenty of less extreme examples to draw from to see it's true.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm We can use logical deduction to figure things out that we don't have direct experience with. If you deny that, then there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind on it.
Most probably. I don't know exactly what do you mean now by this softer claim, but denying experience as a basis for statements about "the reality" is a nonsense and it's as far from the science as it can be.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Even being as conservative as possible, somebody somewhere is occasionally measuring the spin of an electron, and while it's something that affects you practically not at all, it's still splitting the universe in two based on the results.
And? Does it give you any insight into that universe?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Yours, you get to define yourself.
Why would that matter? Superposition does not break, when we change our perception of ourselves. It's physics, not psychology.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm It's a nonsense hypothetical, because it's not possible; it violates the separation of those universes.
Of course it is, but it doesn't bothers you in cases where you claim something about what happens in inaccessible universes, though there cannot be observer who looks into more than one of them.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm As I said, the proper analogy is dogs: two different dogs are different beings, but they're both dogs. A Greyhound is not less of a dog than a Poodle.

Neither being is less you, but they are two instantiations of you (let's say we used some kind of matter replicating teleporter instead of speculating on drawing another you from another dimension).
So would you look at two separate people and treat them as one? If you see two distinct dogs do you refer to them as if they were one? Why does it matter whether they are dogs or not, if they are two distinguishable entities?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm As I already said with the theist "I'm a soul" analogy, if you define yourself in an impossible or incorrect way, that suggests that you simply don't exist as you think you do.

Define yourself by any real boundaries, and we can say it's a coherent definition which distinguishes the you from the not you.
Then I gave one which you even can relate to. When I say my "definition", it's not some random sequence of letters which has no sense like "I'm soul" or "I'm barambuki".
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Because it's a specific configuration of information/relationships. That changes from moment to moment. Your consciousness now is not your consciousness yesterday.
Panta rhei, if you are into such a nitpicking, you may just take the union of all my consciousnesses till this moment from the branch I'm in, including my current consciousness, and name it "mkm's current consciousness", and every time I refer to my current consciousness, we repeat the procedure. And then we say that it's the same consciousness, but further in time, if it's contained in the union mentioned above.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm If you define it by that precise configuration of subatomic particles, that would be true; the table's particles are in constant motion.
If you define it more broadly such that if an electron moves or a particle of dust falls off it it can still be the same table, then no.

For a very broad definition, also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Your prowess in philosophical concepts is impressive, but it's also somehow orthogonal to current topic.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm It's a materialistic claim that doesn't treat consciousness as magical. Anything else is an extraordinary claim.
Only assuming materialism in the first place. The fact that it doesn't treat conscious as magical doesn't mean it can just ignore its existence and its properties which it can't grasp.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm You don't seem to know that you're talking about in the rest of the post.
To contrary, you seem to have a favourite interpretation of QM, but ignore problems with it.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Well, you should. If you're not offering up anything, maybe you should stop telling other people they're wrong?
You don't know, and that's fine. Stop at that. Don't be the militant agnostic jerk who tells everybody else that HE knows that THEY don't know.
No. The fact, that I don't know (and nobody knows for that matter) doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about it. I talk about things well known to anyone in the field. The measurement problem, necessity of adding quantum decoherence, etc. You seem just ignorant about it, but still possessing strong claims on the topic.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm It doesn't add those, it takes the math and the known nature of waves at face value. That the universe is a wave function is simply a conclusion of logical deduction without any additional premises.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
This discussion makes less and less sense. There is no "known nature" of wave function and you should know better to not be fooled by not important similarities. The whole deal with many contradicting interpretations of QM that are equally satisfying with respect to experiments is a living proof of this.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm That's like saying the heliocentric model isn't deduced, otherwise we wouldn't have geocentric models that work just as well -- ignoring all of the elaborate ad hoc rules you have to tack on to force it to work.
In that sense any other interpretation is deduced too. MWI had to negate the collapse and add something else instead, and then produce all these universes, with their own problems.
The funny thing about heliocentric model is that it wasn't accurate and initially it's predictions were considered disproven, but it was so elegant, that it stayed. It was deduced from its assumptions, but not entirely from experimental data.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm This is why we have Occam's razor. You can always force another model to work by adding on enough absurd ad hoc rules.
Like those added by MWI?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm The existence of those models doesn't invalidate deduction from simpler rule sets.
Of course not, but there is no simpler rules set.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm So now you'll admit that other theories violate Occam's razor?
I say it's of secondary or even tertiary importance at best. It's not a rule of any logic used in science, so it doesn't really bothers anyone to the extent you imply.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Occam's razor deals with probability, not absolute statements. You should prefer MWI due to that. It's more probably true, because other interpretations require additional assumptions that make them more likely to be false.
Do you claim that MWI does not require decoherence? What kind of probability are you talking about? How do you measure it?

If we should prefer MWI, why physicists don't prefer it or don't care? Beside the fact, that you are wrong on this one and it can be checked, should we trust brimstoneSalad or should we trust people who actually deal with QM on daily basis (or at least acknowledge their disagreement)?
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmNot at all. Try to imagine what would happen to you (or anyone), if you had no senses at all. No sensible statements are possible in such a state and we have plenty of less extreme examples to draw from to see it's true.
But do you disagree that the language could persist without the examples? Once you learn modus ponens do you really need your senses to validate it?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Now THAT is an extreme claim.
Not at all. Try to imagine what would happen to you (or anyone), if you had no senses at all. No sensible statements are possible in such a state and we have plenty of less extreme examples to draw from to see it's true.
You're arguing an extreme/hard form of absolute empiricism. It is an extreme claim, whether you like to admit it or not:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rati ... mpiricism/
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmdenying experience as a basis for statements about "the reality" is a nonsense and it's as far from the science as it can be.
Science draws its authority from logic, and can be interpreted with it to draw conclusions from observations based on theories we construct that are not strictly observed in themselves.

E.g. because of the theory of gravity (only very well supported) we can know that an arbitrary object: say a pink granite elephant the size of a house cat would, if dropped, fall.
We don't actually have to find or make a pink granite elephant of that size and try it out to know that.
You do not have to observe a thing in itself to have knowledge of what properties it should have.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmAnd? Does it give you any insight into that universe?
Yes, it gives insight into both.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm Yours, you get to define yourself.
Why would that matter? Superposition does not break, when we change our perception of ourselves. It's physics, not psychology.
I didn't say it did. It's not magical, it just makes the most sense to let people decide for themselves when it comes to the relevant moral questions (related to interests).
If you want to present some other method, go for it.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pm So would you look at two separate people and treat them as one? If you see two distinct dogs do you refer to them as if they were one? Why does it matter whether they are dogs or not, if they are two distinguishable entities?
You aren't understanding at all what I'm trying to explain to you, and I don't know how better to do it.
Maybe @Cirion Spellbinder can help clear things up again by asking some questions.

The egocentric concept of "self" that people have, the notion of being a special individual, is not really rationally coherent. We are amalgamations of material in a particular configuration that stores a data set.

It's like having two copies of Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Do you treat them as if you only physically have one book? Of course not. But you can understand STILL that they are two of the same book. And this applies even if one has a finger smudge or a coffee ring on it that the other lacks; these are trivial differences not relevant to our concept of what book it is. It would probably even apply if one were paperback and one hardcover.

So it is with people who are replicas of Each other, whether you use some scifi teleportation or replicator, or you're talking about parallel universes.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmyou may just take the union of all my consciousnesses till this moment from the branch I'm in, including my current consciousness, and name it "mkm's current consciousness", and every time I refer to my current consciousness, we repeat the procedure.
That's not useful, because many universe branches have yous which are following the same heuristic. It's only retrospective. You can do that if you want, but it doesn't help you do this:
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmAnd then we say that it's the same consciousness, but further in time, if it's contained in the union mentioned above.
Do you understand the idea of a "function" in mathematics?
THIS IS NOT A FUNCTION.

Your heuristic is not and can not be forward looking, it's purely retrospective. If you try to apply it in the opposite direction in time, you get many conflicting results because there are MANY "you" which are doing the same thing and looking back to that point of superposition. It only works looking back, not forward. It's incapable of delineating which FUTURE universe retains the "true" you.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pm Your prowess in philosophical concepts is impressive, but it's also somehow orthogonal to current topic.
It isn't at all irrelevant; it's the very root of your existential confusion here.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmOnly assuming materialism in the first place.
Do you NOT?
If not, then there's no point in this conversation.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmThe fact that it doesn't treat conscious as magical doesn't mean it can just ignore its existence and its properties which it can't grasp.
I'm not ignoring it, I explained it pretty clearly. There are no properties of consciousness we "can't grasp", you're just approaching this with a lot of false assumptions.
Please keep your militant agnosticism to yourself. If YOU don't understand, that's fine, but please don't accuse others of not being able to grasp something based on an appeal to personal incredulity.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmTo contrary, you seem to have a favourite interpretation of QM, but ignore problems with it.
What you think is a problem is not a problem.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmNo. The fact, that I don't know (and nobody knows for that matter) doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about it.
You do not understand the subject well enough to be engaging in conversation on it. This much is very clear.
Again, if you're not going to present a coherent argument, please keep your militant agnosticism to yourself.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmThere is no "known nature" of wave function
You don't think we understand anything about how wave functions evolve?
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmThe whole deal with many contradicting interpretations of QM that are equally satisfying with respect to experiments is a living proof of this.
You can show a Geocentric model that's equally satisfying to a Heliocentric model. Doesn't mean anything.
Again, you seem not to understand this subject well enough to be arguing it.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmIn that sense any other interpretation is deduced too.
No it isn't; there's no evidence of wave function collapse being a real thing. It's an assumption that has to be made.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmMWI had to negate the collapse and add something else instead, and then produce all these universes, with their own problems.
The problems you imagine are not problems. MWI doesn't negate anything, it doesn't go out of its way to make those additional assumptions.
The way the wave function of the universe evolves is just math from there. No additional assumptions are made.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm This is why we have Occam's razor. You can always force another model to work by adding on enough absurd ad hoc rules.
Like those added by MWI?
No. This is clear evidence that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/01/13 ... ams-razor/
So, Occam’s razor. MWI just seems to have too much baggage, right? For a lot of people MWI is too high a cost to bear to have a mathematically simple interpretation of quantum mechanics. And let’s be clear: MWI is a simpler theory than (say) the Copenhagen interpretation (CI). For you can start with three postulates, and add a fourth about wave-function collapse, and you get CI. Or you can start with just three, and say nothing of wave-function collapse, and you get MWI. Which interpretation seems simpler now? MWI is a consequence of accepting the three basic postulates of quantum mechanics. If you don’t like that, then you must introduce a fourth postulate ex nihilo to make yourself feel better.

But wait! you say. 10100 universes doesn’t seem simpler. It’s a huge number! It’s ridiculous!

OK. You wanna go there? I’ll turn the argument around. By that rationale, you probably believe that there are only a finite number of integers, because any finite number is simpler than infinity. There. That makes sense, right?

The truth is that an infinite set is often simpler than a single member of that set.
You need to drop this ignorant bullshit misunderstanding of Occam's razor and MWI.

If your next post isn't either:
"I concede that point let's continue to discuss the other points"
or:
"Here is a link to physicist explaining why MWI makes more assumptions than models WITH wave function collapse"

Then this discussion is over. Don't bother posting again about this without something comparable to one of the above.

I have tried explaining this nicely. I don't have time to waste on a juvenile back and forth on something you don't understand and won't either just accept or provide evidence for your position on.

MWI is simpler, it's preferred by Occam's razor. Period. If you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's automatically right, but in terms of knowledge, that's a good reason to prefer something as more probable (and no, not in any measurable amount; you don't need to know whether it's 1% or 100% more probable to simply know it's MORE probable). It's also evidence of rationalism, something else you're wrong on.
mkm wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pm If we should prefer MWI, why physicists don't prefer it or don't care?
Because they're not philosophers, and most of them only care about the math which isn't dependent on interpretation.
It's explained in the article I linked you to above, actually.

https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/01/13 ... ams-razor/
How do I know this? Because I was never taught about interpretations of quantum mechanics. Ever. Everything I know about such things, I learned on my own since graduation. Thinking of taking a quantum mechanics class at your local university? Guess what: they will probably not talk about MWI, or the Copenhagen interpretation, or Schrodinger’s f***ing cat. Why not? Because those are philosophy topics, not physics. You can do quantum mechanics without ever interpreting a single thing. There’s no crying in baseball, and there’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics. It is a purely mathematical theory, that undeniably works, and most people just leave it at that. The idea that thousands of physicists subscribe to one particular world-view just because they constitute a single monolithic conformist society is ludicrous. Invite a physicist to lunch if you don’t believe me.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by brimstoneSalad »

@mkm You are in violation of forum rules. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to start cracking down on this harder because I don't have time to throw assertions back and forth endlessly. I provided a source, you failed to respond accordingly; just more assertions.
mkm wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 8:20 am
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 1:30 am If your next post isn't either:
"I concede that point let's continue to discuss the other points"
or:
"Here is a link to physicist explaining why MWI makes more assumptions than models WITH wave function collapse"

Then this discussion is over. Don't bother posting again about this without something comparable to one of the above.

I have tried explaining this nicely. I don't have time to waste on a juvenile back and forth on something you don't understand and won't either just accept or provide evidence for your position on.
Sorry, but no. It doesn't work that way.
It does work that way, it's how this forum works. I'm sorry to have to delete your entire post because of this.

You're forbidden from further discussion on Quantum Mechanics here for now.

In terms of your accusations of my not understanding what a function means, insulting people isn't going to help your case.

I find it unlikely that you don't even understand what a mathematical function is, but you very clearly do not understand how MWI works (not being willing to put up evidence, as is the issue with your rule violation) and as a consequence you do not understand what a function would entail in that context, but I don't think I can help you on that because we're done discussing Quantum Mechanics.

To explain to others (if anybody is really following this):

One can not arbitrarily connect two strains of causality in MWI by identifying only the earlier one because the that prior strain does nothing to entail the later strain even if the latter entails the former. This is because the later strain is in only ONE of many arbitrary futures, but there is only one past (speculatively); there's a broken symmetry there. When you try to connect them, that connection is only entailed one way (into the past) unless there has been provided a mechanism in the formula to delineate a single future strain (which would be incredibly complex and involve information about every relevant quantum event that defines that single future, I explained this already in a previous post).
If HERE and NOW is that "future", one can certainly simply say "this universe", but that provides no means for pointing to another specific future universe beyond that. Current superpositional states do not imply any specific "measured" future state... that's like the whole point of quantum mechanics.
The later strain (future) DOES probably indicate the earlier (past strain), but you can only connect them if you identify that future strain in some way to distinguish it from the multitude of alternatives.

Unless somebody else has a question on this point, I think that's all I'll say on the matter.

Regardless, mkm, I'm sorry to say you are in violation of forum rules, and your participation in THIS conversation is at an end (unless you'd want to apologize and provide what was asked of you, but I don't think that's going to happen). Do not attempt to argue Quantum Mechanics again. It's a waste of everybody's time if you're not going to put up evidence of what you're claiming and you're going to dismiss what others show you.

You can keep on whatever you were discussing with @Cirion Spellbinder. I'll quote that so as not to lose that part of your post:
mkm wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 8:20 am
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 10:01 pm But do you disagree that the language could persist without the examples? Once you learn modus ponens do you really need your senses to validate it?
I would like to see what someone without eyes, ears, sense of touch, etc. has to say. And even if logic is given a priori or our mind just formulates thoughts with accordance to logic (which is a silly idea, since clearly we can formulate nonsensical thoughts or not adhere to any logical at all), then to make meaningful statements about the reality, you need to have some feedback, i.e. experience. Do you disagree?
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

mkm wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 8:20 am
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 10:01 pm But do you disagree that the language could persist without the examples? Once you learn modus ponens do you really need your senses to validate it?
I would like to see what someone without eyes, ears, sense of touch, etc. has to say.
I'm not saying you can formulate logic without examples, but I do think you can take the senses away afterwards. People who once saw can remember what was seen.
Emma Tracey, BBC wrote:People who were born blind have no understanding of how to see in their waking lives, so they can't see in their dreams. But most blind people lose their sight later in life and can dream visually. Danish research in 2014 found that as time passes, a blind person is less likely to dream in pictures.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28853788
mkm wrote:And even if logic is given a priori or our mind just formulates thoughts with accordance to logic (which is a silly idea, since clearly we can formulate nonsensical thoughts or not adhere to any logical at all), then to make meaningful statements about the reality, you need to have some feedback, i.e. experience.
I think we are in agreement in this respect, but I think logic can maintained once given.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm »

@brimstoneSalad

I guess that's the risk of arguing with admin/moderator.

I provided evidence why this claim:
And let’s be clear: MWI is a simpler theory than (say) the Copenhagen interpretation (CI). For you can start with three postulates, and add a fourth about wave-function collapse, and you get CI. Or you can start with just three, and say nothing of wave-function collapse, and you get MWI.
with which you agreed on several occasions, does not hold.

Here's the proof.
[removed redundant assertions]

See that I don't even argue QM and MWI right now - replace QM, "Collapse" and MWI with theories T_0, T_1 and T_2 respectively with properties as above, and it still holds. So maybe consider not deleting this one.

Anyway, I have no point to concede right now. I could ask whether you concede on that point and admit that your source is wrong, but I don't have the Hammer of the Mods to make such a request consequential, not that I would like to.
We could discuss implications of the above reasoning, but no discussion about QM is no do discussion about QM.

If you want, I may also demonstrate why the union of any chain of functions is a function, or is it too much at once?

Whatever you're going to do, I don't think I will stay here too long. Deleting posts in the heat of the discussion is just a blow below the belt, regardless whether the disputant is right or not. If I'm wrong, let me make fool of myself, deleting my posts casts doubts about you, not me. Responding ex cathedra without a right of defense is just too much, and it looks bad too. Don't want to sound salty, but I am a little bit disappointed, since I came here in reaction to similar treatment (guess you remember and even can relate to it, don't you?). Last time I checked you had a strong opinion on fragility of people's egos, if they censor discussions. Funny how things turn out.
Post Reply