Slashdot Mirror

Physicists coined the term counterfactual definiteness because counterfactual definiteness is not realism. CFD implies, under certain conditions, the statement that things like the momentum and energy of a particle have objective reality. This is in no way the same thing as scientific realism in general.

Particles are an abstraction, they do not have to be objective things for scientific realism to hold (in fact, if CFD is violated then particles themselves have no objective reality in the sense we are using the term). For scientific realism to hold there must exist at least one objectively real thing, it does not have the be particle properties or the particles themselves.

The notion that things are only real when interacting is obviously flawed even in the absence of quantum mechanics. The universe cannot (by definition) interact with anything (unless you are going to start invoking things like gods), but most people would agree the universe has objective reality. If you build a definition of 'existing' which is as you describe it, then from the perspective of modern physics the universe does not exist. You have not only killed realism, you've killed reductionism too. Given that, I would argue a preferable interpretation of a violation of CFD would be that observables (like number of particles, or mass, or energy) are interaction dependent (I dislike the term observation, it is fundamentally vitalist even though you have not used it in that way), and therefore not real.

No need to invoke the wavefunction collapse or discuss wave-particle duality (the latter of which is actually irrelevant in this case, wave-particle duality is a way of expressing the fact that people have a hard time understanding how subatomic structures behave, there is no real duality there, every particle is just a quantum system which always behaves like a quantum system, never like a wave, never like particle).The violation of CFD alone is enough to make notions like 'the energy of a particle when not interacting' meaningless.

http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#believes - Most of the polls I encounter suggest a little over half the physicists you meet are many worlders. The main reason for this is because Bell's inequality forces one to choose between locality and CFD, and most options that violate CFD are either stupid (many minds or Copenhagen) or confusing and philosophically displeasing (stuff like quantum logic). Violating locality tends to make physicists turn green and puke on your shoes. Amusingly enough one of the nice things about many worlds is that it preserves scientific realism, since one can view the wavefunction as real (in fact the wavefunction of the universe is then just about the only real thing left).

I don't know about this experiment, but in the double-slit experiment, you can confirm that the photons pass the slit unobserved(in wave form) when you get a peculiarly structured hit pattern on the wall with the photoreactive film that can only result from the adding and cancelling of two wave distributions.

According to the Everett interpretation, http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm, the universe will split at the time of the observation, not at the time of being placed in wave state, at least that is what section "Q7 When do worlds split?" says.

IMO, the worlds split according to wave functions only to an uninformed observer, which we are most of the time; but we still got enough information to mess up measurements enough so that we can't prove the everett interpretation(At least my impression was that it hasn't been proven yet).

Pinocchio and Rumplestilskin are said to be quaking in their boots.

In all honesty if you can't be bothered going through the motion of finding out who this anonymous poster is, what are the chances that there will be any consequences to face if he doesn't abide by the order? This seems like a waste of court time and money. But it doesn't surprise me. We don't have one sane legal system on the planet that isn't steeped in medieval nonsense. Well at least we've gotten over trying donkeys for adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial#Commonly-tried_animals

http://www.hedweb.com/animal-trials.html

and here you are!

I believe we should have a hunting season on isms (ists), there's far too many of them and they need to be culled. ;) Have you read Damasio's books? Just as a different way of looking back at the blank stares.

You'd be so bored you'd want to die.

Presumably, if this were a possibility, you'd also be able to stimulate the part of your brain that makes you so incredibly happy that you wouldn't care you were, well, just a brain.

Read up on The Hedonistic Imperative, just in case you don't understand.

WTFH, nothing could be farther from the truth.

You are probably thinking of the very special case of deriving one's happiness from comparing oneself to others.

I am not a physicist, but I read this pretty good FAQ http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm which explains a lot about the theory and at Q37 http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#detect a solution is provided how to prove wheter the Many Worlds theory is true or not. It also predicts that around 2030-2040 we will have reversible naonelectronics and AI to perform the experiments.

I am not a physicist, but I read this pretty good FAQ http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm which explains a lot about the theory and at Q37 http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#detect a solution is provided how to prove wheter the Many Worlds theory is true or not. It also predicts that around 2030-2040 we will have reversible naonelectronics and AI to perform the experiments.

... what our goals will become past the singularity, does anyone have any guesses?

>> Here's what the auther says himself: http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html

Somehow the moderator forgot to allow the author to be represented in this debate. Thank you Arlem Tashkinov for posting the above link to the full paper (I mistakenly called it only the abstract in another post).

Here's what the auther says himself: http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html

You are right, as Aldous Huxley was 52 years ago ("The doors of perception and heaven and hell"), or http://hedweb.com/these guys advocate. But we are FAR from that, and this fact cannot be emphasized enough. So: Do as many drugs as you want, but do not expect countries' social systems to finance your coping with the side effects. Thanks

Actually, there is a possible test of Many-Worlds:

http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#detect

You bash Many-Worlds as "religion", but the Copenhagen interpretation is no less based on faith. There's no physical description for what a "wavefunction collapse" is, nor exactly what constitutes a "measurement" that causes such behavior. Most physicists believe Copenhagen, but Many-Worlds has been steadily growing in popularity and now rivals Copenhangen for the preferred interpretation.

The bottom line is that it's entirely justifiable to "believe" one theory is likely over another, even though we have no way to prove it yet. For example, the neutrino was accepted as fact before it could be measured, and indeed, for a while before physicists were even sure HOW it could be measured.

Bruce

Everyone should check out the hedonistic imperative.

In a world where we could improve everyone's lives dramatically, isn't it an immoral choice (and an odious one) not to do so?

That world is coming, sooner than you think.

Wavefunction collapse? We don't need no stinkin' wavefunction collapse! Ever heard of many-worlds?

There can be no paradise on earth as long as the nastier bits of our evolutionary psychology are still holding us back. Egomaniacal, power-hungry, sociopaths (many of whom are now CEOs and politicians) may have been genetically successful in the past, but with increasing technological power, that mindset becomes a liability for net-positive happiness in the world. It's a good thing, then, that a biological solution, and a non-biological solution, will emerge parallel to the growing threat of exponentially more powerful tech in the hands of mostly static primate brains.

Nah, they'll just make sure that you don't have any custard pies before meeting Bill Gates. ;)

You can't have it both ways - smoothed out at the atomic level and re-emerging at the neurological level...

Yes you can (sort of). Check out the MWI, sometimes called Many-Worlds or Many-Histories model of quantum mechanics (Deutsch, Everett, Dewitt, and many others). There is no Copenhagen-style collapse; all possible futures do exist physically. Provides a mathematical model for counterfactuals, free will, and probability. And no faster-than-light signaling.

On this topic, unfortunately, Penrose has missed the boat and Dennett and the others are on the right track.

Basically, it has been observed that any evolutionary process (including technology) will progress exponentially as it builds on past progress, with barely perceptable slow-down/speed-up "S-curves" as paradigm shifts occur.

Moore's Law is certainly an important component of this trend, as it relates to computing power and eventual AI/IA accelerating to Singularity in ~25 years, but there are many others in parallel: storage space, networking bandwidth, # of internet nodes, transportation speed, etc.

One thing that certainly ISN'T keeping pace with our technology is our old evolutionary psychology; hopefully we can fix some of the more disgusting aspects of human nature before it's too late.

Basically, it has been observed that any evolutionary process (including technology) will progress exponentially as it builds on past progress, with barely perceptable slow-down/speed-up "S-curves" as paradigm shifts occur.

Moore's Law is certainly an important component of this trend, as it relates to computing power and eventual AI/IA accelerating to Singularity in ~25 years, but there are many others in parallel: storage space, networking bandwidth, # of internet nodes, transportation speed, etc.

One thing that certainly ISN'T keeping pace with our technology is our old evolutionary psychology; hopefully we can fix some of the more disgusting aspects of human nature before it's too late.

This is the "Many-Worlds Interpretation", pioneered by Hugh Everett and Bryce DeWitt. Everett FAQ

I'm already "wealthy", but I'm supposed to want to be "richer" than the next monkey so that the females will desire my more-powerful genes, but I've never wanted kids (or power) anyway, so I'm a biological failure.

Achieving Utopia would require rewiring the brain, otherwise our selfish genes just fuck everything up.

Bill Gates visiting Belgium again? I'm surprised he dares!

Video, for you custard-pie-throwing Belgian anarchist wannabes...

I really doubt that us humans will be able to survive alongside our exponentionally advancing technology unless we also rid ourselves of the greedy, self-destructive evolutionary baggage that no longer serves us. Either by (navel gazing) genetic engineering, or by transcendance, we have to change.

Technology CAN take the asshole out of people-- we just don't understand the brain well enough yet to change ourselves faster than natural selection. That's the problem: a mismatch between our tech and our old greedy brains that evolved in environments of scarcity. The hope is that we can close the gap before us unenlightend primates destroy ourselves.

--

Today, given the choice, most people would rather be a god among peasants than a king among equal kings. It's the relative advantage that matters to their genes.

--

The solution is a Catch-22, IMO.

People WANT to develop WMD's to increase their innate desire for more POWER. The alphamale/alphatribe that strove for more power got control of more scarce resources (and the women) so their genes & memes spread at the expense the "peacenik monkeys". This law of the jungle still lurks beneath the facade of our presentday civilization.

Getting rid of our self-destructive nature requires advanced technology, and a willingness to part with the evolutionary psychology that served us well in the ancestral environment. Catch22.

--

Each new tech advance is more powerful and more accessible than the last, but the minds that wield it are relatively stagnant and still saddled with millions of years of selfish evolutionary baggage which we won't be able to fix for quite a while yet.

Humankind is within ~30 years of reaching the vingean Singularity, and the only question is the odds on making it without sabotaging ourselves first. IMO, the odds are very low, but unlike Bill Joy, I don't think there's any point in attempting to STOP or even slow this progress -- all we can do is try to safely guide the tech and hope for the best.

--

In reading about this particular issue, I've encountered quite a bit of debate on the web; the most coherent explanation of this debate, I've found at www.hedweb.com, with an interesting 'appeal to authority' at this point. This page also explains why many scientists like the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics (it restores the deterministic nature of the Universe that dissappeared with Heisenberg and Schroedinger's work and eliminates the quantum waveform collapse along with many other paradoxical quantum behaviors) and explains why MWI is implicit in the concept of String Theory. Check it out, and do a little research before we start peeing on the theory...

In reading about this particular issue, I've encountered quite a bit of debate on the web; the most coherent explanation of this debate, I've found at www.hedweb.com, with an interesting 'appeal to authority' at this point. This page also explains why many scientists like the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics (it restores the deterministic nature of the Universe that dissappeared with Heisenberg and Schroedinger's work and eliminates the quantum waveform collapse along with many other paradoxical quantum behaviors) and explains why MWI is implicit in the concept of String Theory. Check it out, and do a little research before we start peeing on the theory...

The fix for war mongering would require genetic fixes, but in order to get a handle on the unintended consequences we'd need more intelligence first.

The fix for famine & disease is much simpler, and much closer: decentralized molecular manufacturing, and artificial immune systems / cell-repair.

--

That's because it's human nature to want to see YOUR group succeed at the expense of another -- Tribalism/Nationalism is alive and well beneath the facade of civilization. It really does boil down to the evolutionary psychology of selfish genes.

I don't pretend to be above that, subconsciously, but consciously I truly think that the more intelligent human minds that are this planet (at the same time), the better off we'll all be in the end.

Economic equality (the wealth gap) probably will get much more obscene over the next few years, but soon enough all the minds in India+China+America+Everywhere will invent the end of scarcity (the scarcity that matters most anyway), and that's not just wishful thinking on my part. TRUE equality on all counts would be wishful thinking, though, because it would require some serious genetic engineering to get rid our nastier evolutionary traits.

(I realize that most people reading this comment probably think I'm a nut at this point.)

--

Close, but not quite. Nanotech's coming economy of abundance won't do anything to get rid of the inherent greed in humans who evolved in environments of scarcity. So, even though anyone will be able have ANYTHING they need or want for virtually no cost, there will still be the selfish incentive to have MORE than the next ape to make your genes appear more secure. (and chicks evolved to lust after the MORE powerful alpha-male types because it served our genes.)

Nanotech will probably bring no utopia without being accompanied by some genetic engineering to cancel out some of our nastier evolutionary baggage.

--

On a basic level, everything good for life is addictive. Eating, fucking, socializing, even killing. I would suggest reading the Hedonistic Imperative for more discussion about the physiology of addiction and how it regulates behavior.

This is really pretty standard stuff. I think perhaps you are confusing "good for life" with the general good. When I say good for life, I mean it keeps you alive (within the context of our evolution as communal predators) and allows you to procreate.

I apologize for not making that clear, but as I said this is psych 101 stuff. The physiology of addiction is pretty well understood these days.

I am curious however, what did you have in mind that was pleasurable but not addictive?

Well, we are going to have to change human nature eventually, if we want to survive alongside exponentially advancing technology where any random psychopath will be able to "press The Red Button" with exponentially decreasing effort.

I think humans are basically good when resources are abundant and life is good, but when resources are scarce (artificial or not), then the "selfish gene" goes into overdrive and people get desperate. But there's also that rare minority who have their selfish gene stuck in high gear even though they're already living like [spam]kings, because, hey, more power and more money secures *MY* genes even further, right? Screw the commons. I only care about ME and MY family and MY tribe.

--

We evolved in a world of scarcity, where "Mine!" served our genes (self/family/tribe) very well, and it's a big part of our psyche subconsciously and consciously. Even in the economy of abundance to come, with everybody potentially living like kings, there will still be a few who want to be the king of kings and have MORE than everyone else around them for primal reasons. Oh, and the sexiest queens will still want to get with the most powerful kings (what an incentive to hoard!), and not just your every-day schmoe.

"It's good to be King/selfish" - mel brooks

--

Petty nationalism (aka: tribalism) won't go away until our old genes and memes can be (artificially) adapted to cooperate more as a global whole, rather than compete. Even if resources were as abundant as a StarTrek replicator in every household, there'd still be irrational conflicts and primal powerlust screwing up the works unless we do some intelligent redesign.

--

These genetic enhancements that will re-wire our primative brains, letting us constantly experience bliss while eliminating all undesired pain, both emotional and pyhsical, allowing us to be intellectually creative like none before, and getting rid of primative reinforcement circiuts in our brains that cause addiction.

(PS: Dude, I hate Vinnie, but you're alright. :) And it was your last post that put you on my friends list.)

--

-- Tristero

The thing of it is -- is that even in an economy of abundance with free digital reproduction (which we have now) and near-free material reproduction (which is the "other side of the couin" that we'll have soon), there will always be those would want to restrict this freedom in order to secure disproportionate power for themselves. It's not about logic.

It's in our genes to be greedy -- some more than others. Without genetic engineering it would take a loooong time for people to adapt a world with very little scarcity.

--

IMO, a lot of people don't care about "IP", unless they're either starving or extraordinarily greedy.

It's evolutionary psychology underlying this whole property debate: controlling ownership whether physical or intellectual == enhanced survival probability == greed is good gets propagated (regardless of scarcity).

The age of digital plenty just rubs some people the wrong way; and in the coming age of material abundance ("desktop manufacturing" nanotech), many more won't be able to cope with the idea of not really owning physical things anymore, because our brain's wiring can't adapt that fast without help. Selfish genes become a hindrance at a certain point.

--

The problem is you are equally restricted to rules and constraints.

Think about your vision. Imagine how different the world would look if your vision was not limited to such a small spectrum of radiation. What if you could see infrared light? or xrays? or gamma rays? Your conception of the world in which you leave is deeply affected by your inability to see the vast majority of radiation in this universe.

Your feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions. The sad reality of our modern times is that feelings are nothing more than evolutionary guidlines to condition you to behave in a way which promotes the contiunance of your genetic makeup. Happiness is a variation on satisfying bodily desire, some base and some social. No one would deny sex and food promote happiness. But we know today that simple human contact, being in the PRESENCE of other humans causes a release of specific endorphins.

A simple way to see for yourself how chemicals affect your feelings and desires is to take narcotic drugs. Suddenly, all your feelings are obliterated. Sex means nothing. You have to remember to eat as you feel no hunger. You don't care whether other people are around or not so you become rather isolated. When the rules change, YOU change in a very profound way.

There is a great deal of research behind all of this though. The Hedonistic Imperative has a great deal of info on the subject.

I want to be part of that economy.

You said it. I was a .com millionaire and now I'm delivering pizzas. I still have my head in the clouds, though; whether I am rich or not right now (man I miss the 90s!), we'll all be Gods within the next few decades.

The other response to my post (not the tattoo one) had a cool link in it you should check out: The Hedonistic Imperative.

By the way, thanks for the vote of confidence in friendship! ;-) I know that sometimes I'm not completely sane, like when I post the trollish "My Vow" posts on the SCO articles... But they deserve it, dammit.

Cheers!

if you can make food out of dirt what do you need money for?

For measuring dick-size, of course. Alpha male assholes don't just disappear overnight.

Even with a (pre-singularity) economy of abundance staring us in the face, us humans will still screw it up because we're still burdened with our selfish "jungle psychology", until we decide to fix it and/or transcend our genes completely.

--

Some people are conscious of their evolutionary psychology, you know. I have no conscious desire to be the tribal alpha-male with the biggest dick, and the biggest house, in order to attract the hottest baby-oven to bake my genes.

I'm usually happy-like-a-Buddist (minus any religion), largly because I "believe" that humanity will cease to exist -- either literally OR figuratively -- within this century. Thanks to accelerating technology, we'll eventually either destroy ourselves, or we'll be unrecognizably post-human.

--

The point is, according to this model all universes obey the same laws and thus all of them allow for the multiverse, so the above argument does not apply. It's a bit like saying since there are infinitely many numbers (or mathematical statements) that there is one which does not allow for any other numbers.

A couple of quick refs to read up on multiverse interpretations of QM: The Everett Interpretation, and David Deutsch's home page.

-- Tristero

http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm

The need to have more than your neighbor leads back hundreds of thousands of years; to impress a potential mate, to look good for the tribe. It's pathetic.

That it is, but what's interesting is how a gift economy emerges when there's an abundance of resources - your success is then judged not by your material possessions but by how much you contribute to others. This is/was common among many cultures, including native americans, scientists, etc., but is gradually being "subverted" by greed in an exchange-based (capitalistic) economy. As humans increase in population exponentially, resources will only get more scarce (so greed is good for ME), until parallel exponential trends allow a return to economies of unimaginable abundance, and then, very shortly thereafter... Singularity.

I, for one, would prefer we left these things behind ASAP, or at least refined mind and body, so as not to usurp our humanity for our primatism.

I'm with you on that.

It's my #1 fear that a very high percentage of all civilizations, including our own, destroy themselves with technology vastly more advanced than their own primitive biology can cope with (hence, my .sig).

(PS. I marked you as a /. friend because I want to associate myself with link-minded individuals. Damn evolutionary psychology! :-)

--