I'm no expert, but it seems likely to me that there should be an infinite amount of mathematically consistent "theories" to describe a given system. Iff the "theories" have no more predictive power than the rules of the system itself ( they may make predictions but unless they are testable they could describe non existent things and you wouldn't know).
Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
31–40 of 63 posts
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering no machines are conscious, yes, it is absurd.
No machines _we know of_ _in the present_ are conscious. Our ignorance about whether that's possible or not is not a proof it's not possible. Besides, why would it matter if the observer is conscious or not? Our psychology is biasing our reasoning about these thing, leading us to attribute something magical to the process that make us "us". It's understandably utterly disconcerting to lose the ground under the sense…
Copy 0 would see 0, and copy 1 would see 1.
As soon as the copy was created, it would diverge. But both would have ~equal claim on being "me".
> They'd have no way to tell which of the two entities they are though.
Not until they learned it from someone authoritative.
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would the implication be? Do you assume that it's absurd to consider that a conscious being is really no different than any other memory equipped machine and thus can be in a superposition state like anything else without necessarily "feel" anything special about it?
Considering no machines are conscious, yes, it is absurd.
How do you know that we aren't machines?
Certainly Occam's Razor implies that we are.
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering no machines are conscious, yes, it is absurd.
No machines _we know of_ _in the present_ are conscious. Our ignorance about whether that's possible or not is not a proof it's not possible. Besides, why would it matter if the observer is conscious or not? Our psychology is biasing our reasoning about these thing, leading us to attribute something magical to the process that make us "us". It's understandably utterly disconcerting to lose the ground under the sense…
Doesn't this thought experiment illustrate the absurdity of consciousness cloning? Consciousness cloning is a logical implication of conscious machines. Hence, by modus tollens, machines cannot be conscious.
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
No machines _we know of_ _in the present_ are conscious. Our ignorance about whether that's possible or not is not a proof it's not possible. Besides, why would it matter if the observer is conscious or not? Our psychology is biasing our reasoning about these thing, leading us to attribute something magical to the process that make us "us". It's understandably utterly disconcerting to lose the ground under the sense…
Why would a shared past equal a shared future? I mean, you don't treat twins as though they are a single person, right?
Some people do. Dress them the same, even.
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#36After reading a few blog posts and interviews with Peter Woit, I think I can say he's definitely a little bit "fringe" as far as physics is concerned. He does try to stick to the science (of sorts) but using some philosophizing he makes critiques like here:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-...
"This is however a straw man argument: the problem with such research programs isn't that of direct testability, but that there is no indirect evidence for them, nor any plausible way of getting any."
Sure, we might not have a plausible way of testing it today but that doesn't mean there won't be in the future. 2000 years ago people were on the right track that the Earth is round but couldn't "test it" but going around it. I'm sure the prospect of going round the earth back then seemed as distant as testing a multiverse today.
He also calls other reputable physicists "pseudo-science", which is aggressive and over the top.
All in all, he doesn't seem to present a logical critique beyond "it's not testable", all while using circular logic that "not being testable" is sometimes beneficial:
"Many ideas that are "not even wrong", in the sense of having no way to test them, can still be fruitful, for instance by opening up avenues of investigation that will lead to something conventionally testable."
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#37Simple answer: No.
Anybody who says yes is selling something. "Maybe" is not necessarily dishonest.
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#38Physical laws work only in the physical realm. They break down the moment you get into the realm of "thoughts and feelings". There are other deeper realms too which advanced buddhist meditators have experienced and talk about.
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#39I'm no expert, but it seems likely to me that there should be an infinite amount of mathematically consistent "theories" to describe a given system. Iff the "theories" have no more predictive power than the rules of the system itself ( they may make predictions but unless they are testable they could describe non existent things and you wouldn't know).
Got to be careful there, when someone pointed out to Einstein that his theory of Relativity predicted wacky singularity things he scoffed ... we call them "black holes"
Re: Are Physical Laws Inevitable?
#40After reading a few blog posts and interviews with Peter Woit, I think I can say he's definitely a little bit "fringe" as far as physics is concerned. He does try to stick to the science (of sorts) but using some philosophizing he makes critiques like here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-... "This is however a straw man argument: the problem with such research programs isn't that of direc…
> 2000 years ago people were on the right track that the Earth is round but couldn't "test it" but going around it.
Fun fact: Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth and the tilt of its axis around ~200 BC, by comparing the angles of shadows at two locations. Perhaps not definite proof, but certainly a test of an assumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
This is not to disagree with the thrust of your argument, however :)