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.
mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Law of excluded middle

Post by mkm » Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 2:35 pm
@mkm I don't have time to deal with a one sided discussion where somebody is assuming bad faith on my part.
I'm trying to be brief.
I don't assume it, just point out that you skip important parts of my arguments, and then you fight with a straw man.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 2:35 pm
People spend too much time worrying about whether reality is "real" or not, and it's not useful.
It's useful for realizing limitations of science and our reasonings. You may not find it useful though and I get it.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 2:35 pm
So it's not inaccurate, it's just lacking the confusing nuance you want:

"I don't "see" all outcomes of all splits of all times, just the branch in which I happen to sit, and MWI says nothing about to which split you will belong (though, as a unexceptional part of the universe you end up in all in superposition, but it doesn't help and I don't know what does it mean)."

What does any of that mean? You don't even know.
Obviously YOU do see all of them, just not the same you, because YOU ARE in all of them (except the ones you're dead in). If you don't know what it means, why are you telling people what they're saying is inaccurate? Not cool.
Except, me is me, obviously I'm talking about myself and my conscious, not some copy of me in other split which is in quantum superposition with me, but inaccessible. What do you mean by saying that you are in all of these universes, which you can't even access with your conscious?
How do you equate it with logical determinism?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 2:35 pm
I feel like your criticism exceeds your grasp here.
Apropos subtle insults... But you are right on this one. It exceeds my grasp and I think that it's one of these examples where metaphysical conclusions drawn from QM have gone too far. You could share for example your view on the topic, instead focusing more and more on my character, and less and less on what I've got to say. I don't know how ignoring meritum of my posts and focusing on supposed defects of my character meets your definition of "productive".
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 2:35 pm
Can you see how this can't be productive? And that when you're sliding in subtle insults and accusing other people of not understanding your position (as you did with me) when you clearly don't understand it yourself, it's basically the opposite of productive?
I explained some parts of my position, but you ignore it right now and think I need help. I understand my position, and in that case my position is that I don't understand what does it mean to be in all of the universes and not being aware of it. AFAIK MWI doesn't grant preference to any split (beside the weights proportional to probabilities of possibilities) and says nothing where any given conscious will "land". Or doest it?

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8881
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm

mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
Except, me is me, obviously I'm talking about myself and my conscious, not some copy of me in other split which is in quantum superposition with me, but inaccessible.
I know. Neither are privileged, though, so they are both equally YOU. You can't distinguish future branches as one being yourself and one not being so... unless one crosses some character threshold that you would reject, but that's another issue entirely (more like the question of when a wolf stops being a wolf and starts being a dog; it's an issue of categorization).

Or equally, if you prefer, neither is you because you don't exist in the way you presume yourself to. Much like a Christian is not actually a God-endowed soul, and in so far as he or she identifies his or her existential self as that, that self doesn't exist.

mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
What do you mean by saying that you are in all of these universes, which you can't even access with your conscious?
The same thing I mean when I say any arbitrary inanimate object is in all of those universes. I don't think consciousness is special.
mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
Apropos subtle insults... But you are right on this one. It exceeds my grasp and I think that it's one of these examples where metaphysical conclusions drawn from QM have gone too far.
Then instead of making an assertion "inaccuracy", it would have been better to just ask what that means, and explain why you think it doesn't make sense. It may or may not have been accurate.
mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
I don't know how ignoring meritum of my posts and focusing on supposed defects of my character meets your definition of "productive".
I'm not really invested in the conversation, I'm just asking you not to personally make criticisms like that which you admit to not understanding.
mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
I understand my position, and in that case my position is that I don't understand what does it mean to be in all of the universes and not being aware of it.
That's fine. But if your position is simply that you don't understand something, please be careful about making strong criticisms against people who don't share that position and telling them their understandings are incorrect.
mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
AFAIK MWI doesn't grant preference to any split (beside the weights proportional to probabilities of possibilities)
Correct.
mkm wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:01 pm
and says nothing where any given conscious will "land".
It's like saying there's a circle in two universes, and asking which one got to keep pi as the ratio of its circumference to diameter. Why does only one get pi? Why would pi need to choose a universe to be in?

When two universes diverge, each holds an identical version of a particular conscious pattern, and they diverge over time with different experiences. They both are and remain you, until such a point as one of them diverges too far from the you-ness that defines you. If one becomes a mass murderer, you can say that one is no longer you, for example, as a matter of existential definition: this one has become another kind of person.

Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Post by Cirion Spellbinder » Wed May 16, 2018 11:48 pm

@mkm
Do you think there’s a rigorous way to differentiate between consciousnesses beyond the parameters it or others arbitrarily define it with?

Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Post by Cirion Spellbinder » Wed May 16, 2018 11:52 pm

@brimstoneSalad
Do you believe in MWI because it conserves logical determinism or are there other reasons to believe in it?

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8881
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu May 17, 2018 12:53 am

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:52 pm
@brimstoneSalad
Do you believe in MWI because it conserves logical determinism or are there other reasons to believe in it?
Occam's razor favors it too, because it doesn't posit collapse like Copenhagen does.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8881
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu May 17, 2018 12:56 am

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 4:32 pm
What is your position?
Realism.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 4:32 pm
I have, but I didn't look at the chart. It seems I'm a non-naturalist?
The distinction is not terribly clear.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 4:32 pm
But I don't think most people outright reject logic (unless they don't know what it is)?
I don't think they do, or at least won't be keen on admitting it.

mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by mkm » Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
I know. Neither are privileged, though, so they are both equally YOU. You can't distinguish future branches as one being yourself and one not being so... unless one crosses some character threshold that you would reject, but that's another issue entirely (more like the question of when a wolf stops being a wolf and starts being a dog; it's an issue of categorization).
They are not privileged according to the interpretation, but one clearly is according to my experience, so that just doesn't agree with the part on equality. Or in other words, if they were both equal, there would be no way to distinguish them, but here I am :D
You are right that I can't distinguish future branches with respect to "where I will be", or rather where my conscious will be, but clearly I can distinguish the partial branch in which I currently sit from all other splits that occurred till now. For example I'm in the branch, where Kennedy was killed, so I'm not in any branch in which Kennedy survived or there was no attempt at his life. That asymmetry shouldn't appear if the evolution of the wave function is deterministic.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
Or equally, if you prefer, neither is you because you don't exist in the way you presume yourself to. Much like a Christian is not actually a God-endowed soul, and in so far as he or she identifies his or her existential self as that, that self doesn't exist.
I see the other way around. If someone tells me that I exist in particular way, but it doesn't agrees with my experience, or worse, that there are aspects of my existence beyond my or anyone's reach, but described in specific way, I don't buy it. Be it equal selfs in inaccessible universes or God-endowed soul. I can't even buy, because such an idea has no reflection in my mind. We can't talk sense about things that are unreachable for our perception. it's like in some variations on NTT - would you deem yourself X if you hadn't the ability to deem? For me it borders nonsense right now, I really try to see other perspectives, but every time I try to entertain the idea that there are other mkms that are equally me, I see, that first I would have to ignore the activity of my own conscious which makes the difference between perceived me and other "mes".
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
The same thing I mean when I say any arbitrary inanimate object is in all of those universes. I don't think consciousness is special.
And yet you too make this claim having no access to the rest of your equal selfs. Inanimate objects can't testify and for some reason consciousness is much more likely to cause a collapse of the wave function (apparent or real).
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
Then instead of making an assertion "inaccuracy", it would have been better to just ask what that means, and explain why you think it doesn't make sense. It may or may not have been accurate.
Sometimes I like to start with a bold statement and see where it goes. Consider it skipping the part "I think that (...)". We should probably say it each time we don't express facts in some formal structure, so we drop it altogether. Plus, it cost me time and thoughts to come up with some previous posts which apparently didn't deserve response, so I became a little bit more brutal brief ;)
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
I'm not really invested in the conversation, I'm just asking you not to personally make criticisms like that which you admit to not understanding.
You invested time, just like me, and time is a limited resource. Is claiming that other claim is inaccurate personal? Do you or Cirion take it personally?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
That's fine. But if your position is simply that you don't understand something, please be careful about making strong criticisms against people who don't share that position and telling them their understandings are incorrect.
Where have I made it personal?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
It's like saying there's a circle in two universes, and asking which one got to keep pi as the ratio of its circumference to diameter. Why does only one get pi? Why would pi need to choose a universe to be in?
Clearly, superposition of ideas is not controversial, ideas of circles don't even have to be the same, as long, as a proper communication is achieved. The same with pi, though in some universes pi, as defined above, may not be the same. Anyway, physics deals with physical objects, not mathematical objects or ideas in general.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:27 pm
When two universes diverge, each holds an identical version of a particular conscious pattern, and they diverge over time with different experiences. They both are and remain you, until such a point as one of them diverges too far from the you-ness that defines you. If one becomes a mass murderer, you can say that one is no longer you, for example, as a matter of existential definition: this one has become another kind of person.
So if I understand you correctly, these "equal selfs" are just "identical" copies of me with shared history and then they proceed on their own?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:48 pm
@mkm
Do you think there’s a rigorous way to differentiate between consciousnesses beyond the parameters it or others arbitrarily define it with?
I fear I don't understand the question. I'll say something and see where it goes. In physics and QM specifically concepts of observer, measurement and such are crucial, especially if we want to collect the most reliable data, we try to be as delicate as possible, to be as independent observer as possible. With conscious is that problem, that subject and observer cannot be separated. If you put a conscious mind into a box it won't become a Shrodinger's cat.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8881
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm

mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
They are not privileged according to the interpretation, but one clearly is according to my experience,
Theists with a "relationship" with God say he clearly exists according to their experiences. I don't think experience or personal feelings carries any weight beyond the fact of those feelings.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
Or in other words, if they were both equal, there would be no way to distinguish them, but here I am :D
You haven't distinguished them; you're saying the exact same thing in many other universes.

You can distinguish one universe from another by saying things like "this is the universe where that electron was spin up, that one is where it was spin down", but in so far as this affects your behavior that's normal divergence from different experiences. Doesn't mean one or the other is any less the you that preceded them.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
but clearly I can distinguish the partial branch in which I currently sit from all other splits that occurred till now.
And the other yous in the other branches can do the same for their own branches. Doesn't necessarily affect their existential identities.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
For example I'm in the branch, where Kennedy was killed, so I'm not in any branch in which Kennedy survived or there was no attempt at his life.
Do you define yourself based on your experience of learning about the Kennedy assassination?
I'm sure there are some people who are obsessed with it, and it's an important part of their sense of self. If so, then you wouldn't exist in those other worlds. Otherwise: no, those are still you, just with an insignificant difference.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
That asymmetry shouldn't appear if the evolution of the wave function is deterministic.
What I've described is precisely what we would expect.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
Be it equal selfs in inaccessible universes or God-endowed soul.
Nobody is saying they're perfectly equal in any way, but they both fit the definition of yourself as established before the split. Just as a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both dogs. Two things don't have to be perfectly identical to be categorized as the same sort of thing.

"You" are not a single configuration of particles in the context of a specific configuration of the universe around them, "You" is a general category of you-like consciousness.

If you seriously defined yourself in terms of your experience with an electron, and said that if it was spin-down you wouldn't be you anymore (something that would indicate you being born again as a fundamentally different non-you person), then yes you only exist in the universe where it turned out to be spin up.

Otherwise, it's just a silly assertion to say both of those people are not you when those universes diverge.

mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
I can't even buy, because such an idea has no reflection in my mind. We can't talk sense about things that are unreachable for our perception.
Really just sounds like an argument from personal incredulity.
I don't have any problem with thinking about these concepts. You kind of have to let go of the illusions you may have about self, though.

mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
Inanimate objects can't testify and for some reason consciousness is much more likely to cause a collapse of the wave function (apparent or real).
Any chaotic function that evolved very quickly would seem to do that.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
Clearly, superposition of ideas is not controversial,
You-ness is an idea.
mkm wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:01 am
So if I understand you correctly, these "equal selfs" are just "identical" copies of me with shared history and then they proceed on their own?
Yes, the only time they become not you is if they cross some boundary in the existential definition of you.

For example, for a Christian, that might be losing faith (or gaining it and being born again).

Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Post by Cirion Spellbinder » Thu May 17, 2018 5:20 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:56 am
Cirion Spellbinder wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 4:32 pm
I have, but I didn't look at the chart. It seems I'm a non-naturalist?
The distinction is not terribly clear.
I meant I've read the article a few times, but I never looked at the chart.

mkm
Full Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:51 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by mkm » Fri May 18, 2018 6:46 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
Theists with a "relationship" with God say he clearly exists according to their experiences. I don't think experience or personal feelings carries any weight beyond the fact of those feelings.
That's criticism of experience in general. Even science boils down to the sum of experiences of people who practice it. We then call it objective, or assume it is, because enough people (all?) have similar experiences that can be reproduced. I dare to say that basically all people, you included, share my experience of other "equal selfs", or rather lack of it. Do you disagree?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
You haven't distinguished them; you're saying the exact same thing in many other universes.
What does it mean? How do you know that? What about universes in which I can't even speak or I'm dead?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
You can distinguish one universe from another by saying things like "this is the universe where that electron was spin up, that one is where it was spin down", but in so far as this affects your behavior that's normal divergence from different experiences. Doesn't mean one or the other is any less the you that preceded them.

And the other yous in the other branches can do the same for their own branches. Doesn't necessarily affect their existential identities.
You try to force a definition of "me" that I am all mkms across all universes that occurred in all splits. The fact, that you can describe with certainty the behaviour of some system doesn't mean that its parts are equal. I agree that they are equivalent (which here would just mean that they are in the superposition), but it's truism here. You can't just put "=" between them.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
Do you define yourself based on your experience of learning about the Kennedy assassination?
I'm sure there are some people who are obsessed with it, and it's an important part of their sense of self. If so, then you wouldn't exist in those other worlds. Otherwise: no, those are still you, just with an insignificant difference.
That sounds awfully arbitrary. 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. It closes the discussion, but I don't consider it a solution to my problem with that interpretation.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
"You" are not a single configuration of particles in the context of a specific configuration of the universe around them, "You" is a general category of you-like consciousness.
I get that such a definition is needed to make it work for MWI sake, but it doesn't relate in any way to anyone's experience. Nobody even perceives himself in that way. Do you?
[/quote]
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
Really just sounds like an argument from personal incredulity.
I don't have any problem with thinking about these concepts. You kind of have to let go of the illusions you may have about self, though.
Well then,try it yourself: can you perceive something that cannot be perceived?
When we talk and think about these concepts, we are the observers that pretend not to be the subjects, but in everyone's case one is the observer and the subject, and these two cannot be separated. 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.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
Any chaotic function that evolved very quickly would seem to do that.
What do you mean? In any experiment, be it the experiment with slits, or big-scale experiments on entanglement, the collapse ("true" or apparent) of the wave function occurs upon our measurement, not due to interactions with other objects.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:46 pm
You-ness is an idea.
It's an idea only for you, but for me I'm me, perceived and perceiver, not some ambiguous idea of self. Can you separate yourself from yourself? You fool yourself, if you think you can.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests