Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://philosophicalvegan.com/
I almost forgot about it. Why would Occam's razor favor not collapsing wave function at the expense of explosion of zyllion of universes?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu May 17, 2018 12:53 am Occam's razor favors it too, because it doesn't posit collapse like Copenhagen does.
You can define yourself however you want, arbitrarily.That sounds awfully arbitrary.
Then the next plank second you would no longer be you, because only that instant in the place and time would be you.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.
No, such a definition is just a coherent way of talking about the concept of self, period.I get that such a definition is needed to make it work for MWI sake,
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.but it doesn't relate in any way to anyone's experience. Nobody even perceives himself in that way.
I think you mean conceive. It really doesn't matter what you can or can not conceive of.can you perceive something that cannot be perceived?
Neither is a problem in MWI.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.
How do you think it's measured? Not with objects? Magically, Psychically?the collapse ("true" or apparent) of the wave function occurs upon our measurement, not due to interactions with other objects.
Either you don't understand Occam's razor, or don't understand MWI.Why would Occam's razor favor not collapsing wave function at the expense of explosion of zyllion of universes?
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 Your personal experience is irrelevant; you don't have to experience something to understand that it's true.
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.
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 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.
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 You can define yourself however you want, arbitrarily.
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 Then the next plank second you would no longer be you, because only that instant in the place and time would be you.
I would like to see the reasoning behind it. That's a bold claim.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.
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 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.
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 I think you mean conceive. It really doesn't matter what you can or can not conceive of.
You're wrong. That's a problem in physics in general.
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 How do you think it's measured? Not with objects? Magically, Psychically?
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.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.
Now THAT is an extreme claim.
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 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.
Yours, you get to define yourself.
It's a nonsense hypothetical, because it's not possible; it violates the separation of those universes.
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.
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.
Because it's a specific configuration of information/relationships. That changes from moment to moment. Your consciousness now is not your consciousness yesterday.
If you define it by that precise configuration of subatomic particles, that would be true; the table's particles are in constant motion.
It's a materialistic claim that doesn't treat consciousness as magical. Anything else is an extraordinary claim.
You don't seem to know that you're talking about in the rest of the post.
Well, you should. If you're not offering up anything, maybe you should stop telling other people they're wrong?
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.
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.
So now you'll admit that other theories violate Occam's razor?
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.
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 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.
And? Does it give you any insight into that universe?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.
Why would that matter? Superposition does not break, when we change our perception of ourselves. It's physics, not psychology.
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 It's a nonsense hypothetical, because it's not possible; it violates the separation of those universes.
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 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).
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 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.
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 Because it's a specific configuration of information/relationships. That changes from moment to moment. Your consciousness now is not your consciousness yesterday.
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 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
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 It's a materialistic claim that doesn't treat consciousness as magical. Anything else is an extraordinary claim.
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 You don't seem to know that you're talking about in the rest of the post.
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 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.
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 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.
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.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.
Like those added by MWI?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.
Of course not, but there is no simpler rules set.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 2:06 pm The existence of those models doesn't invalidate deduction from simpler rule sets.
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 So now you'll admit that other theories violate Occam's razor?
Do you claim that MWI does not require decoherence? What kind of probability are you talking about? How do you measure it?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.
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?
You're arguing an extreme/hard form of absolute empiricism. It is an extreme claim, whether you like to admit it or not:
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.
Yes, it gives insight into both.
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).
You aren't understanding at all what I'm trying to explain to you, and I don't know how better to do it.
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:
Do you understand the idea of a "function" in mathematics?
It isn't at all irrelevant; it's the very root of your existential confusion here.
Do you NOT?
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.
What you think is a problem is not a problem.
You do not understand the subject well enough to be engaging in conversation on it. This much is very clear.
You don't think we understand anything about how wave functions evolve?
You can show a Geocentric model that's equally satisfying to a Heliocentric model. Doesn't mean anything.
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.
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.
No. This is clear evidence that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.mkm wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 6:21 pmLike those added by MWI?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.
You need to drop this ignorant bullshit misunderstanding of Occam's razor and MWI.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.
Because they're not philosophers, and most of them only care about the math which isn't dependent on interpretation.
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.
It does work that way, it's how this forum works. I'm sorry to have to delete your entire post because of this.mkm wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:20 amSorry, but no. It doesn't work that way.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.
mkm wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:20 amI 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 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'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.mkm wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:20 amI would like to see what someone without eyes, ears, sense of touch, etc. has to say.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?
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-28853788Emma 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.
I think we are in agreement in this respect, but I think logic can maintained once given.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.
with which you agreed on several occasions, does not hold.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.