Saladin

• Saladin 10 Feb 2012 21:32 UTC

  0 points

  on: Help: Is there a quick and dirty way to ex­plain quan­tum im­mor­tal­ity?

  Can I ask a related question? Is there a physical model available that allows for immortality (eternally stable structure) in a cyclic model of the universe only (limited space with finite time between cycles)?

  MWI and other parallel universe models seem to allow for suitable ways of replication and escape—but I never found anything related for a cyclic model. There is talk of surviving the Heat death (superconductor based computers) and Big Crunch/​Big bang (using suitable black holes, etc..) - but there is one specific problem I haven’t seen addressed: Particle decay.

  If everything else works as planned and a future stable structure is created—in a cyclic model—Is there any way to prevent it from catastrophically desintegrating through particle decay (which is bound to happen in enough finite time)?

• Saladin 7 Feb 2012 19:59 UTC

  −4 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World

  If You force the outcome to be soly on Your decision alone and if Your decision is clear, free and consistent with a specific philosophy, then You must be judge acc. to this philosophy.

  Which philosophy is valid in a Least Convenient Possible World?

  If everything I do to “humanely” help the patients without commiting murder to the strange ris futile AND and if none of the patients would be willing to do a self-sacrifice to save the others AND if the sole and only decision to this situation would lie on me, then (my clearly idealized) I would teach the donor all the neccesary skills to kill and harvest me to save the others.

  If not even that is allowed, then yes—a utalitarianistic murder of the stranger would be legit, beacuse You have trully checked for all options, to freely and through selff-sacrifice try to save the patiens—without success.

  Only when You eliminate all humane options can You turn to the “inhumane” (I use thet term loosely—in this case, at the end, it was a humane sollution) - if that brings out more utility/​less global suffering/​more global pleasure and freedom.

  But again—this is not a realistic option. Realistically it is almost certain that a humane approach would become viable before that.

• Saladin 7 Feb 2012 19:27 UTC

  −5 points

  on: Sean Car­roll: Does the Uni­verse Need God? [link]

  As hard as I try I cannot fathom the: “If it’s untestable, anything is possible—if anything is possible, nothing is possible—nothing is the simplest and therefore best explanation” argument.

  Everything requires a reason (the Existence of a reason or cause—if its comprehensible and testable is a separate question) The fundamental question always go back to “why and how Existence at all”. Of course we cannot make direct measurements regarding the origin of Existence—but we can certanly base our hypothesis and theories on our acumulated knowledge and daily, testable physics. The corect logic would therefore be to extend all the known and proven constants into the unknown (through symetries, conservation of energy, ..) - not to allow there every single possibility, specially illogical ones,. Or to put it simply: Only when You eliminate the logical, can You turn to the illogical.

  Nothing conclusive from our past and currenty physical knowledge proves, that Creatio Ex Nihilo is an actual phenomenon or even that it is physically/​logically possible. Most importantly—there is not one single complete idea (that I know of) that explains the mechanism, of how absolute Nothingness (Non-Existence) can spring forth anything else but further “Non-Existence”. I don’t need to stress out that there is even less talk about why this Non-Existence would produce or could even allow for just one single universe. If anything—if Non-Existence could produce our universe it could (and must of have) produced many—if not all physicaly/​logical universes—if not even more, illogical ones. Seems to me, that if You want to talk about true Creatio ex hinilo—You must support the notion of a max. large multiverse: An Ultimate Ensemble (which is the totally opposite view most people wan’t to prefer Creatio Ex Nihilo for—Occam can be tricky sometimes).

  Sure, there are theories that promote the idea of the Big Bang “from nothing”, but there is always “something”, that causes the Big Bang and that “something” never gets explained, which only pushes the question to the origin of “that” cause. And it usually hangs as being a sort of First Cause, a “Something” in existence, which is by far a better option than Creatio Ex Nihilio. You can include causality, entropy and similar notions to any kind of “Something”—but never to Nihilo.

  True Non-Existence, event though a concept we never experience in reality, is a beautifull thing, because it has only one, clear and strict meaning. Total absence of anything and all (spacetime included). If its not that—it’s “something”. Of course, if it″s not Creatio Ex Nihilo, then we have to assume a past eternity of some kind (be it Primus Movens or a cyclic/​paralel model). Sure—past eternity brings out problems—but not as many as a single or multiple Creatio Ex Nihilo. But Past eternity is based on factual knowledge and observation—its an extension of what we know into the unknown, rather making up new types of logics and physics.

  the best way I found is to use modal logic for such issues: Everything can (quite easily and reasonable) be put into 2 categories: Actually possible and potentially possible. Actually possible are known and proven possibilities (assuming hard determinism doesn’t hold, but thats a separate question), I could go left or right—a car could pass my house or it could not, etc. Potentially possible are possibilities, that “might be possible”. It might be possible to go faster than light, to alter all the physical constants we know, etc. But it’s not proven to be possible (and of course, the possibility never happened that we know of).

  We can quite easily and rationaly posit, that there are no physical proofs and explanations for Creatio Ex Nihilo while it the same time we know that conservation of energy, causality, etc.… are proven and real constants (and that in some physical models we can show how the Past Eternal models are consistent, logical and give observable predictions).

  Creatio ex Nihilo with its non-existing logic and missing proof is surely a “possibily possible” scenario, while Past Eternity is (if combined with specific physical models) an “actually possible” scenario. The first one is clearly less possible and less logical and we must conclude, that the second model is more probable.

  And I come back again: Why go against Occam and favor Creatio Ex Nihilo, when we have simpler and logical alternatives? It baffles me. I can only attribute that to personal biases and/​or extremley narrowminded “horse blinders” approach, that simply cannot give a complete and objective picture. Yes—accepting Past eternity means opening a Pandoras box worth of possibilities—but keeping Your eyes shut is not good, objective science.

  As long as we have logical options (however complex) they will always be more probable then illogical ones. Occam favours “real” options above “potential” options.

  Does the Universe need a God? Maybe not—but God definetly needs a universe and a past eternal one guarantees Gods existence if God is “actually possible” (Posthuman- or otherwise).

• Saladin 7 Feb 2012 17:23 UTC

  −10 points

  on: The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World

  If I go back to the original situation: 1 healty stranger-donor to save a dozen transplant patiens and what to to: It always surprizes me why no one suggest to simply talk with the stranger, explain him the situation and ask him, if he would willingly sacrifice his life to save the other dozen. Is it so hard to imagine that such altruism (or an exchange for a small token of appreciation: commemorative plaque, nameds street/​building, etc.) could be realistically expected?

• Saladin 7 Feb 2012 17:00 UTC

  −2 points

  in reply to: APMason’s comment on: Ev­i­dence For Simulation

  1. If alien means “not comprehensible” (not even through our best magination), then it’s folly to talk about such a thing. If we cannot even imagine something to be realistically possible—then for all practical purposes (until objectively shown otherwise) it isnt. Or using modal logic—Possiblly possible = not realistically possible. Physically/​logically possible = realistically possible. The later always has bigger weight and by Occam = higher possibility (higher chance to be correct/​be closert to truth)

  2. If we imagine the designer is not acting irrationaly or random—then all potential motives go into survival/​reproduction and max. p/​p. The notion of max. p/​p is directly related to the stage of inteligence and self-awareness of the organism—but survival/​reproduction is hardwired in all the evolutionary types of life we know.

• Saladin 6 Feb 2012 21:22 UTC

  0 points

  on: Ev­i­dence For Simulation

  Wouldn’t it be rational to assume, that what/​whoever designed the simulation, would do so for for the same reason that we know all inteligent life complies to: Survival/​reproduction and maximizing its pleasure /​ minimizing pain?

  A priori assumptions arent the best ones, but it seems to me that would be a valid starting point that leads to 2 conclusions:

  a) the designer is drastically handicapped with its resources and our very limited simulation is the only one running (therefore the question—why is it exactly like it is—why this design at all if we’re talking in several “episodes”)

  b) the designer is can run all the simulations he wants simultaneusly and ours isn’t special in any particular way besides being a functional tool (of many) providing the above max p/​p to the designer

  if we assume a) then the limitations/​errors of the simulation would be more severe in every way, making it easier to detect what the author lists. Also, our one simulation would have to be an optimal compromise to achieve the very limited, but still max. p/​p for the designer—we could talk about variety of sorts—but only variety with clear and optimal purpose would count. What is so special then in our known configuration of the physical constants? It would seem that a strong anthropic principle would apply—only a universe with inteligent (even simulated) life and physical constants similar to our own would be required for an evolutionary way for this life to evolve—or think it has evolved. I would quess that the world outside our simulation is subject of similar ways of physic and evolution as is known, in a simplified way, in our simulation—by this same anthropic principle.

  If b) is the case and we’re only one simualtion of many—that would assume that there are no severe restrictions on resources and computational power of the designer. Our simulation would therefore be a lot more detailed with less room (if any) to find errors or any of the kind of proof that we’re living in a simulation. Parallel processing the same simulation with diferent, but relevant permutations asside—what could we tell about other simulations running in paralell with ours? That they are very different to our simulation. Since resources arent a problem—variety for max. p/​p is the key. The designer could arbitrarily create simulations that are not long-term sustainable, but allow for scripts and vistas impossible to experience in a simulation similar to our own. He could use the resources to explore all relevant (or potentially relevant) possible world simulations and allocate resurces to constantly find new ones. All computationally accessible and relevant worlds would be running in parallel (because there is no need for an “experience cap”). The only limit would be that of an act utalitarian—to run those scenarios, that in the long run bring out the most pleasure.

  The level of detail of the simulation is the key—if its very limited—so is the world outside it and our simulation is the best compromise (best possible world) to run—a fact that could be analysed quite intensely.

  if it’s very detailed (but we still managed to prove we’re in a simulation), then we’re only a very small drop of paint in a very big picture. But I would guess in this case that our detailed simulation would allow for additional subsimulations, that we could create ourselves. The same could be true for a), but with much greater limitations (requiring limited moemory/​experiences and/​or plesure loops—very limited ways of maximizing our own pleasure)

• Saladin 21 Aug 2010 15:43 UTC

  −6 points

  in reply to: PaulAlmond’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  My problem with MWI is not the massive amounts of worlds—but how they are created.

  How do You reconcile MVI with the 1st Law of thermodynamics?

• Saladin 21 Aug 2010 7:32 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: prase’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  I thought that in closed quantum system there are only probabilities of a true indeterminisitc nature—and the only deterministic part is at the collapse of the wave function (where the positions, speed,… are truly determined—but impossible to measure correctly).

  Still the fact remains that one universe is holding observers and even there is only one sollution to past eternity—that of a cyclic universe of the same kind and same parameters of the big bang—the futures of the universe would be determined by the acts of those observers. Different acts of observing—different universes in series (but strictly with the same physical constants).

  All the consequences of observing in those universes would so have to be realized.

• Saladin 14 Aug 2010 8:29 UTC

  −4 points

  in reply to: WrongBot’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  I always say “physical/​logical” to note the known laws of physics of our universe and the logic that describes it.

  If you say only “physical”—then you limit yourselve only to that which is directly observable, testable and foreseeable. And that hinders a more relaxed approach of discussing such “far-out” possibilities as required in such cases.

  Point being: IMO the only valid physical/​logical speculations are those that relate to the physics and logic we know of (or a variation of it in an indeterministic universe),

  Only Past Eternity stays completely (or mostly) in such a physical/​logical frame. Creatio Ex Nihilo is on the other hands, completely out of it with no hypothetical and (not to mention) no observational evidence offered.

  It’s the most unlogical thing ever conceived: no theory explains it—yet it has the “same” probability as any other option in the physically unknown.

  If You “can” put the known logic and laws into the physically unknown and make it into a coherent, workable, testable theory—then any such theory is “more” probable then others without it.

  Minimalism and reductionism, which are the the main reasons for allowing/​prefering Creatio Ex Nihilo, break down after some scrutiny. If You talk about one singular event in all eternity (or non-existence), which just happens to be a universe capable of intelligent life—then you need to offer some theory—any kind of theory, that explains just that (and the logic of it). How can “Non-Existence” allow for any kind of Existence and why in all eternity just for 1?

  If we talk multiple Creatio Ex nihilos for completely separated spatial/​temporal universes, then their numbers can easilly exceed the nr. of universes that happened in a Eternal Existence.

  Not just that—universes born out of Ex Nihilo would allow not just all possibilities as Eternal Existence allows for (based on known physical laws and logic) - it would also allow for universes with laws and logics completely unknown to us (illogical to us—just as Creatio Ex Nihilo is illogical to us).

  So when You think about it Past Eternity is the simpler and more logical solution and as such a valid starting point for further specualtions.

• Saladin 13 Aug 2010 21:14 UTC

  −2 points

  in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  Doesn’t quantum indeterminism (edit: quantum uncertanty) prevent that?

  Any kind of quantum fluctuation, which “could” have had a makroscopic, relativistic effect must have had such an effect (f.e, in an early universe).

  Either you except indeterminism or a nonlocal hidden variable—my guess is indeterminism is far more exceptable.

• Saladin 13 Aug 2010 19:27 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  I’m quite sure i’m not ready for such a discussion. I don’t have the education and the critical/​analytic approach needed to state complex sets of axioms, to give formulaic approaches, to adapt physical theories etc. My sloppy english and writing in overly simplified terms doesn’t help much either.

  But I think I know the laymans basics of the main physical theories and I have a general idea where the main problems lie.

  Ignoring the problems, loopholes, paradoxes,… while good for solving localized problems and questions, is not good practice and science, if it doen’t give a big, coherent picture of things (the result being, for example, the Copenhagen explanation).

  Lets start out simple:

  Is it logically true, that by any known logic and in accordance with known physics a past eternal Existence (which is and/​or includes our universe) requires the use of modal logic and it’s realisation as a type of modal realism?

  Meaning: a past eternal Existence “must” include the realisation of all its pysical/​logical possibilities (at minimum all the possibiities our universe physically/​logically allows for)?

  Is this correct?

• Saladin 13 Aug 2010 16:10 UTC

  −9 points

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  “I cannot imagine what evidence you could have for such a belief.”

  From the 3 possibilities You can imagine regarding the origin of Existance itself (Creatio Ex Nihilo, Primus Movens or Eternal Existence) only the latter is fully compatible with all the basic physical laws/​mathematics/​logic that we know (an can imagine) of, while at the same time being the simplest possibility.

  That is—if by Creatio Ex Nihilo You mean one, single event- that spawned exactly one universe in all off eternity: ours.

  You might think that Creatio Ex Nihilo (and I mean True Nihilo: from Nothing, from Non-Existence) reduces the importance and complexity of everything to a minimum—but it does the opposite—it makes our existence a total unique, singular and extremely special event.

  Why only once? Why only ours? Why only like this?

  However You turn it—Past eternity (or Eternal Existence) is (and has been for a long time) the most plausible option. It stays in the realm of knowable, calculable, everyday laws & physics- of the of our universe and it’s possibilities.

  Ex Nihilo (and to a lesser extent Primus Movens) incorporate unknowable origins with unknowable laws, mathematics & logis that are clearly in violation to our known one. If You have a simpler, knowablr solution to a problem, then it’s by occam the prefered one.

  Unknowable isn’t less in Occams eyes: it’s always more.

• Saladin 13 Aug 2010 15:47 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  Well, it’s not that I believe in a Posthuman God—but I do believe in a past eternal universe (multiverse, Existence,..).

  “Believing” just in that is IMO a rational belief (until proven otherwise, of course).

  Past eternity neccesarily leads to a kind of modal realism—all possible worlds are (or have been) real worlds.

  If there is a possible world that allows for a God (to evolve) - then it is neccesarily true.

  So the only guestion left is “is there a possible universe where God (-like entity) can evolve”?

  That’s complicated—but I noted one oversimplified idea that “might” show such a possibility.

  i’d like to discuss this in more detail.

• Saladin 13 Aug 2010 15:32 UTC

  1 point

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)

  Hello.

  I’ve only been checking this site for a short while and after reading all these interesting thoughts I posted something myself.

  I’m interested in objective, rational thoughts about the ultimate reality of our existence (and Existence itself) and coming from a religious family—I also try to rationalize the notions I have about God.

  I see that modal realism and Plantingas ontological argument don’t go down well in here and I concur—by themselves they are underwhelmingly weak.

  But what if You combine these two views, based one assumption alone—that Existence (whatever exactly it entails) has to be past eternal.

  It’s not an irrational belief—it’s even possible by some theories. I posted something in that line (shouldn’t be hard to find—there aren’t many posts about God here) and I would very much appreciate any valid comments.

  It’s a simple theory, but I would very much appreciate some feedback. I have no idea if I’m talking rubbish or if it does make for a coherent logic.

  Thanks in advance.

  Saladin from Slovenia.