Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:14 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:08 amAnother fallacy of gray. If we control things in OUR portion of the universe we can adjust the experience of time. That is what computer simulations do - they allow us to CREATE time.

Have you compared the size of a man-made computer simulation to the size of the universe?
Or are you convinced that our universe is a computer simulation?

The same way your muscles interact with your bones to make you type on a keyboard.

Which in the case of multiverse hypothesis would make it probably undetectable since everything we see is already a slice of the multiverse.

And I see no reason not to. The 'expansion' of our universe could be an illusion as we accelerate to the singularity.

I agree, but wouldn't that further confirm that black holes are parts of our own universe?

I see. So you are just looking for that dopamine fix of Eureka? We have pharmaceuticals for that?

Even if I figure out as much as I can, I probably won't be able to put it to much practical use. Does it have to have an utility?

Because I understand the ontology of interpretation. Linguistic computation and algorithms. And words contain infinite meaning.

As postmodern philosophers have shown.

Without some objective/agreed-upon/imposed by authority criteria for 'valid interpretation'. It is not meaningless. It's worse. It is objectively meaningful always and to everyone!

No language can have objective interpretation, so what's your point?

I am on the phone now so I can’t quote in-line...

1. Yes. I have done the maths on quantum computation.
2. Have you done the math on how much bigger the unobserved universe is compared to the observed one?
3. Since they are black holes (for information) we have no idea what goes on inside. They can be used for computation though...
4. I hope your pursuit at least has utility to YOU. Otherwise you are wasting your own time. And if we are lucky - you will give something back in return.
5. That is not true on the subjectivity of language. As best as we can invent “objectivity” (by social consensus), Lambda calculus is objectively interpreted. Curry-Howard isomorphism.

Spoken languages are hopeless. We are still arguing about God 2000 years on.

Programming languages are “deterministic” and therefore objective (for very stretchable and dualistic definition of determinism in quantum computing).

The dualism IS quantum information and quantum entropy!

Order and chaos.
Ying and yang.
Heaven and hell.
Good and evil.
Right and wrong.

Pick your interpretation

Self-determinism is ingrained in you

And you can’t have determinism (self OR otherwise) without omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

Because entropy.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:35 amI am on the phone now so I can’t quote in-line...

1. Yes. I have done the maths on quantum computation.

Not what I asked. How is quantum computation relevant here?

Also, you seem to be talking about quantum computers like it was self-evident that we will be able to use them for general purposes. Quantum computation is a fascinating idea on paper, except I think there is a good possibility that we won't be able to make much use of the random behaviour of qubits within the actual quantum computers.They excel at certain tasks.

(Besides the entire universe is already quantum.)

2. Have you done the math on how much bigger the unobserved universe is compared to the observed one?

I've seen various estimates but no one really knows.

3. Since they are black holes (for information) we have no idea what goes on inside. They can be used for computation though...

Used for computation how? Remember encoded information is just a fallacy that made its way into science. And how does any of this reverse the arrow of time. So much fantasy.

That is not true on the subjectivity of language. As best as we can invent “objectivity” (by social consensus), Lambda calculus is objectively interpreted. Curry-Howard isomorphism.

There is no such thing as objective interpretation, including Lambda calculus. Social consensus is by definition not objective.

Spoken languages are hopeless. We are still arguing about God 2000 years on.

Programming languages are “deterministic” and therefore objective (for very stretchable and dualistic definition of determinism in quantum computing).

Programming languages are only "objective" within the context of Information theory, and therefore worse than English when used in philosophy, as I said all this time.

The dualism IS quantum information and quantum entropy!

Order and chaos.
Ying and yang.
Heaven and hell.
Good and evil.
Right and wrong.

Pick your interpretation

I find it highly nonsensical to apply dualism to the quantum world. That's just a bad feature originating from the Copenhagen approach.
Luckily now things are changing and we are moving towards decoherence-MWI/consistent histories approaches.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am Not what I asked. How is quantum computation relevant here?

You asked what it would take to simulate a universe. I pointed at quantum computing. Do you not see the parallels between simulation/computation? You don't have to simulate the entire universe. Just the parts you want to live in.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am Also, you seem to be talking about quantum computers like it was self-evident that we will be able to use them for general purposes. Quantum computation is a fascinating idea on paper, except I think there is a good possibility that we won't be able to make much use of the random behaviour of qubits within the actual quantum computers.They excel at certain tasks.

Maybe. They are just a piece in the system. The way we use them today they are better suited for co-operating with classical computers for solving particular type of problems.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am (Besides the entire universe is already quantum.)

EXACTLY! So we can leverage it for our computational needs! It will be far more efficient than the crap we built!

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am I've seen various estimates but no one really knows.

So if the size of our universe is 'unknown', then where is the 'boundary' between us and the next universe? How do you speculate what is beyond the unknown to even hypothesize a multiverse?

These two ideas are incompatible.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am Used for computation how? Remember encoded information is just a fallacy that made its way into science. And how does any of this reverse the arrow of time. So much fantasy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxVlGAFX7vA&t=637s

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am There is no such thing as objective interpretation, including Lambda calculus. Social consensus is by definition not objective.

Objectivity (in the way you conceptualise it) doesn't exist. It is a made up philosophical red herring. It requires a reference frame outside of the system (our universe). And by your own admission we don't even know what the size of the system is. Let alone if it has an 'outside' one can place themselves in.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am Programming languages are only "objective" within the context of Information theory, and therefore worse than English when used in philosophy, as I said all this time.

Uh. No. Lambda calculus is Mathematically consistent. It is theoretically correct General-purpose Turing machine. Realizing the theory into a practical implementation is a separate concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)

The practical realzations of the theory WORK. Which is evidence that the theory is (at least in part) consistent with reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:56 am I find it highly nonsensical to apply dualism to the quantum world. That's just a bad feature originating from the Copenhagen approach.
Luckily now things are changing and we are moving towards decoherence-MWI/consistent histories approaches.

Screw the copenhagen approach. I prefer the hidden variable interpretation. Betting on the fact that however weird the universe is - it is an epistemic error on our behalf.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:05 pm You asked what it would take to simulate a universe. I pointed at quantum computing. Do you not see the parallels between simulation/computation? You don't have to simulate the entire universe. Just the parts you want to live in.

Maybe. They are just a piece in the system. The way we use them today they are better suited for co-operating with classical computers for solving particular type of problems.

EXACTLY! So we can leverage it for our computational needs!

This fantasy is shared by many people nowadays. If you know a non-statistical way to predict the apparently random behaviour of qubits let me know. (And in addition to this, they are also having major trouble maintaining the superposition as the number of qubits increases.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxVlGAFX7vA&t=637s

How does computation reverse the arrow of time for a big part of the universe? Again mixing entropy of information with the arrow of time I suppose.

Uh. No. Lambda calculus is Mathematically consistent. It is theoretically correct. Realizing the theory into a practical implementation is a separate concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)

The practical realzation of the theory WORK.

English is better than mathematics for philosophy too imo. There are too many meanings, too many contexts. It can use mathematical and information theory elements.

Screw the copenhagen approach. I prefer the hidden variable interpretation. Betting on the fact that however weird the universe is - it is an epistemic error on our behalf.

Well local hidden variable is considered to be refuted, but you can still bet on nonlocal hidden variable.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:14 pm This fantasy is shared by many people nowadays. If you know a non-statistical way to predict the apparently random behaviour of qubits let me know. (And in addition to this, they are also having major trouble maintaining the superposition as the number of qubits increases.)

Your need for exact prediction/absolute determinism is getting in the way of your statistical brain. Predicting the shape of a statistical distribution is STILL a prediction. And time crystals are opening avenues for quantum memory.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:14 pm How does computation reverse the arrow of time for a big part of the universe? Again mixing entropy of information with the arrow of time I suppose.

At this point you need to be open about the reference frame from which you are making these assertions. Are you a human on Earth, or is your head up in the 'objectivity' cloud. You don't need to reverse the arrow of time for whole the universe.

Your EXPERIENCE of time is linear. 1 second is one second. In a computer simulation the speed of time is multiplied. You experience time faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_time

It is kicking the can down the road if you will.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:14 pm English is better than mathematics for philosophy too imo. There are too many meanings, too many contexts. It can use mathematical and information theory elements.

That is a meaningless claim without an objective (in the way that you use it) standard. Different? Sure. Better? How did you assert that without a teleology?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:14 pm Well local hidden variable is considered to be refuted, but you can still bet on nonlocal hidden variable.

Lol. 'local'. Human egocentrism is endless. We think everything revolves around our presence.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:27 pmYour need for exact prediction/absolute determinism is getting in the way of your statistical brain. Predicting the shape of a statistical distribution is STILL a prediction. And time crystals are opening avenues for quantum memory.

My need or your need. It's getting in the way of quantum simulations.

At this point you need to be open about the reference frame from which you are making these assertions. Are you a human on Earth, or is your head up in the 'objectivity' cloud. You don't need to reverse the arrow of time for whole the universe.

Your EXPERIENCE of time is linear. 1 second is one second. In a computer simulation the speed of time is multiplied. You experience time faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_time

It is kicking the can down the road if you will.

So now we are talking about small Matrix-like simulations with (I suppose) digitized humans?

That is a meaningless claim without an objective (in the way that you use it) standard. Different? Sure. Better? How did you assert that without a teleology?

There are so many philosophical schools, ideas etc. I don't see how anyone could describe them in the language of mathematics or information theory.

Lol. 'local'. Human egocentrism is endless. We think everything revolves around our presence.

It's not really about human presence, it's more like about quantum correlations ignoring spacetime.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:47 pm My need or your need. It's getting in the way of quantum simulations.

We are training machine learning algorithms just fine. We can't do any stateful (memory) stuff yet. But... time crystals.
In the mean while - hard optimization problems are par for quantum computation.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:47 pm So now we are talking about small Matrix-like simulations with (I suppose) digitized humans?

We are talking about options/optionality. That is one option.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:47 pm There are so many philosophical schools, ideas etc. I don't see how anyone could describe them in the language of mathematics or information theory.

I am yet to read a philosopher whose perspective is not a subset of mine. Once I understood computational linguistics and the structure of logic/language - I began to see it all as equivocation. Different words/aesthetics - same underlying structure.

If you understand somebody's teleology and axioms (pre-suppositions) that is often enough to use it as a seeding function ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed ) and infer a bunch of stuff about them.

It is why I ask the "What do you want?" question a lot.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:47 pm It's not really about human presence, it's more like about quantum correlations ignoring spacetime.

Yes. We know that GR and QFT don't play nicely together. Which is either one needs to go, or we need a ToE

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:59 pmWe are training machine learning algorithms just fine. We can't do any stateful (memory) stuff yet. But... time crystals.
In the mean while - hard optimization problems are par for quantum computation.

I guess you have decided on your philosophical "truth" then. We will certainly beat time, the only question is how.

We are talking about options/optionality. That is one option.

I wouldn't call it much of an option; humans can't actually be digitized. Such computer programs would hardly have any experiences we humans are familiar with. It could create a new species though.

I am yet to read a philosopher whose perspective is not a subset of mine. Once I understood computational linguistics and the structure of logic/language - I began to see it all as equivocation. Different words/aesthetics - same underlying structure.

If you understand somebody's teleology and axioms (pre-suppositions) that is often enough to use it as a seeding function ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed ) and infer a bunch of stuff about them.

You don't need to base everything on information theory for that.

Also, I think nondual philosophy and non-conceptual thinking can't actually be expressed in any language at all, by definition. So if we are to do the hand-waving, it's better done in English.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm I wouldn't call it much of an option; humans can't actually be digitized. Such computer programs would hardly have any experiences we humans are familiar with. It could create a new species though.

I don't like the word 'cant' without a corresponding violation of physics. I prefer to say 'very hard' or 'very expensive'. Or slow and gradual.
For all we know - we are AI and we don't know it. *shrug*

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm You don't need to base everything on information theory for that.

Of course, but it has a high SNR of useful patterns which generalize really well. And I try to keep my mind clean of duplicate ideas.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm Also, I think nondual philosophy and non-conceptual thinking can't actually be expressed in any language at all, by definition. So if we are to do the hand-waving, it's better done in English.

There is an aspect to that. If I am to talk to somebody with no background in maths and physics - you are right. But shared universal knowledge helps immensely for rapid consensus building. Computer Scientists just use information theory as pre-supposed metaphysical grounding. Makes things move along quite smoothly.

Yes. The hand-waving is indeed better done in English until a common language develops. It is an emergent phenomenon of abductive reasoning. That small divergence of perspectives/meaning is enough to cause havoc because butterfly effect. I'd tell you all about distributed consensus and Byzantine failure modes some other time. A useful pattern for human consensus-building.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:41 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm I wouldn't call it much of an option; humans can't actually be digitized. Such computer programs would hardly have any experiences we humans are familiar with. It could create a new species though.

I don't like the word 'cant' without a corresponding violation of physics. I prefer to say 'very hard' or 'very expensive'. Or slow and gradual.
For all we know - we are AI and we don't know it. *shrug*

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm You don't need to base everything on information theory for that.

Of course, but it has a high SNR of useful patterns which generalize really well. And I try to keep my mind clean of duplicate ideas.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm Also, I think nondual philosophy and non-conceptual thinking can't actually be expressed in any language at all, by definition. So if we are to do the hand-waving, it's better done in English.

There is an aspect to that. If I am to talk to somebody with no background in maths and physics - you are right. But shared universal knowledge helps immensely for rapid consensus building. Computer Scientists just use information theory as pre-supposed metaphysical grounding. Makes things move along quite smoothly.

Yes. The hand-waving is indeed better done in English until a common language develops. It is an emergent phenomenon of abductive reasoning. That small divergence of perspectives/meaning is enough to cause havoc because butterfly effect. I'd tell you all about distributed consensus and Byzantine failure modes some other time. A useful pattern for human consensus-building.

Okay, let's agree to disagre. Overall I think that basing philosophical discourse on Information theory would just unnecessarily distort and complicate things. The classical laws of logic work just fine.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:18 pm Okay, let's agree to disagre. Overall I think that basing philosophical discourse on Information theory would just unnecessarily distort and complicate things. The classical laws of logic work just fine.

Agree to disagree

The law of identity (ontology) breaks down with recursive scientific reduction.
Lambda calculus and Curry-Howard isomorphism are impossible without giving up the law of excluded middle and holding onto it produces dichotomised thought patterns.
Law of non-contradiction is about the only useful one, but even then it is not absolute and people over-react to contradictions.

Think of them as training wheels. When you are done learning how to think you should mostly disregard all three.

While holding onto them the set of propositions (arguments) one can make in classical logic really is very limited. Reality is complex - it requires higher order logic.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:18 pm Okay, let's agree to disagre. Overall I think that basing philosophical discourse on Information theory would just unnecessarily distort and complicate things. The classical laws of logic work just fine.

Agree to disagree

The law of identity (ontology) breaks down with recursive scientific reduction.
Lambda calculus and Curry-Howard isomorphism are impossible without giving up the law of excluded middle and holding onto it produces dichotomised thought patterns.
Law of non-contradiction is about the only useful one, but even then it is not absolute and people over-react to contradictions.

Think of them as training wheels. When you are done learning how to think you should mostly disregard all three.

While holding onto them the set of propositions (arguments) one can make in classical logic really is very limited. Reality is complex - it requires higher order logic.

But can you make an example where they break down in philosophy?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:44 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:18 pm Okay, let's agree to disagre. Overall I think that basing philosophical discourse on Information theory would just unnecessarily distort and complicate things. The classical laws of logic work just fine.

Agree to disagree

The law of identity (ontology) breaks down with recursive scientific reduction.
Lambda calculus and Curry-Howard isomorphism are impossible without giving up the law of excluded middle and holding onto it produces dichotomised thought patterns.
Law of non-contradiction is about the only useful one, but even then it is not absolute and people over-react to contradictions.

Think of them as training wheels. When you are done learning how to think you should mostly disregard all three.

While holding onto them the set of propositions (arguments) one can make in classical logic really is very limited. Reality is complex - it requires higher order logic.

But can you make an example where they break down in philosophy?

Yes. Define ‘exists’ in a manner compatible with popperian epistemology.

viewtopic.php?t=25087

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:44 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:33 pm
Agree to disagree

The law of identity (ontology) breaks down with recursive scientific reduction.
Lambda calculus and Curry-Howard isomorphism are impossible without giving up the law of excluded middle and holding onto it produces dichotomised thought patterns.
Law of non-contradiction is about the only useful one, but even then it is not absolute and people over-react to contradictions.

Think of them as training wheels. When you are done learning how to think you should mostly disregard all three.

While holding onto them the set of propositions (arguments) one can make in classical logic really is very limited. Reality is complex - it requires higher order logic.

But can you make an example where they break down in philosophy?

Yes. Define ‘exists’ in a manner compatible with popperian epistemology.

viewtopic.php?t=25087

Exist as in, it's there? Like the monitor in front of me? Not sure what you want to have defined, existence is itself.