Slashdot Mirror

You should be scared. AI is an artificial God. If we aren't careful, we could end up with a paperclip maximizer.

But we could also wind up with a truly benevolent artificial God designed to fulfill our values in a totally consensual manner.

But that's exactly what this sort of thing shows is not the case! The data about cognitive biases is robust. This one is a variation of the framing effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology) and the data shows that even smart people as individuals don't do well on such tests. We are all as individuals subject to cognitive biases. What's even worse is that knowing about cognitive biases can even be counterproductive http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_people/ because we are much more prone to see them in other people than in ourselves even though we're all subject to them.

Quantum effects are not hard to understand, they're just counter-intuitive to everyday experience. This site has a good explanation of QM, and how it differs from normal experience.

The universe doesn't work in specifics until something is measured. It doesn't choose parameters for particles (spin, position, &c) at the outset and let things evolve like little billiard balls.

Instead, it uses probabilities which flow and interact with one another. These probabilities have both amplitude and phase, so that the interactions are wave-like as well as probability-like. For example, because of this wave-like interaction it's possible for two non-zero probability flows to completely cancel to zero.

The universe appears to calculate probabilities for all possible outcomes and only choose one when the measurement is made. When particles are entangled, you increase the number of possible outcomes. For each new particle that becomes entangled you increase the number of possible outcomes by a factor of two. Ten particles will have 2^10 = 1024 possible outcomes, and so on.

So to do math at the quantum level, you take a set of entangled particles and set up the measurement so that division with no remainder has probability one while division with any other remainder has probability zero. Then load your register with all the integers, let the probabilities interact, and take the measurement.

You have just performed division using all the integers at once.

If you can do this with a reasonably large register you can check all the factors of a composite number in linear time - the time it takes you to load sqrt(P) divisors into the register.

Easy peasy!

An interesting side-note is the idea of the universe keeping track of all possible outcomes until a measurement is made. If this works as predicted, the universe will have to keep track of 2^3000 possible outcomes, depending on the key length (3000 is the recommended RSA key length to be secure until 2030).

There are only ~10^80 = 2^240 atoms in the universe. If a quantum computer works as predicted, one wonders how and where the universe keeps track of all these states. At the very least, quantum computing is interesting because it will allow us to probe the limits of the universe in an entirely new domain.

Here's hoping we don't encounter a buffer overflow.

(Note: Some facts were harmed in the making of this explanation.)

I accept that the probability is non-zero, and nothing I said conflicts with that. However, there's not really any chance that it could happen.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ml/but_theres_still_a_chance_right

Sounds like a triumph of Amazing Breakthrough Day.

The issue isn't the use of radio waves as an incidental. Radio waves come out from deliberate attempts by civilizations try to set up beacons and say "Hey! We're here." I agree that are normal radio use is insufficient to be detected. Heck, even if you were at Alpha Centauri, telling that our radio transmissions are not natural would be tough. As to the large scale projects in question, simply calling them myths and saying "lol" is not a logical response, but essentially the absurdity heuristic http://lesswrong.com/lw/j4/absurdity_heuristic_absurdity_bias/. As to stellar lifting, you could instead of just declaring your ignorance spend a few seconds Googling or looking at Wikipedia. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_uplift. And no, you don't generally do stellar uplifting to your own home star (unless you are doing something to extend its lifespan which seems dubious). You'd do stellar uplifting and similar techniques to get useful mass out of stars that don't have habitable planets near them (at least if you were remotely ethical from a human standpoint).

Hmmm - that doesn't really clarify, but instead just makes quantum physics seem confusing.

Here's a link to a nice series on explaining quantum physics that doesn't try to make it seem "magical", but instead is just the basis for how stuff works in the real world: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/

It's hard because the people writing the test have no experience writing for an audience.

When you write for an audience, you quickly come to understand that things you think are obvious aren't obvious to everyone, and that any loose or fuzzy choice of words adds ambiguity. It's the problem of self anchoring and illusion of transparency.

Specifically in the case of the test:

Test modes are introduced with only a brief explanation and no worked examples for clarity.

"Find the missing part for exercises 1 and 2" is weak, non-specific, and ambiguous. "Part" has connotations of a physical piece that completes a whole (like a puzzle piece, or the broken handle of a cup), but is used to describe a grouping. The presentation uses two disparate representations of a group: 5 pennies, versus a cup labelled "6". The captions "part I know" and "whole" seem to have nothing to do with the pictures - the 5 pennies isn't a "part", and the cup is a "whole" object, but why is it labelled 6? The cup is non-sequitur to the question, and cups hold fungible materials while the pennies are enumerated. And to drive that last part home, the cup is shown "filled" with liquid. Or is it partially filled? And is the fact that it's partially filled somehow related to the question?

Here's a reworked example that's a little better. (Could be better - I didn't give spend a lot of time.)

For the next two questions, we will show you something on the left and something on the right. Choose the answer which, when added to the thing on the left, makes it the same as the thing on the right.

Example: [left: Square containing 3 circles] [right: Square containing 4 circles]
[list of answers, with circle marked correct].

Question 1:

Show 5 smaller cups (shot-glass sized) filled with a dark liquid. Show a measuring cup with lines labelled 1-7, and filled to level 6 with a dark liquid.

Question: How much more ink is needed on the left to make the amount of ink on the right?

It's hard because the people writing the test have no experience writing for an audience.

When you write for an audience, you quickly come to understand that things you think are obvious aren't obvious to everyone, and that any loose or fuzzy choice of words adds ambiguity. It's the problem of self anchoring and illusion of transparency.

Specifically in the case of the test:

Test modes are introduced with only a brief explanation and no worked examples for clarity.

"Find the missing part for exercises 1 and 2" is weak, non-specific, and ambiguous. "Part" has connotations of a physical piece that completes a whole (like a puzzle piece, or the broken handle of a cup), but is used to describe a grouping. The presentation uses two disparate representations of a group: 5 pennies, versus a cup labelled "6". The captions "part I know" and "whole" seem to have nothing to do with the pictures - the 5 pennies isn't a "part", and the cup is a "whole" object, but why is it labelled 6? The cup is non-sequitur to the question, and cups hold fungible materials while the pennies are enumerated. And to drive that last part home, the cup is shown "filled" with liquid. Or is it partially filled? And is the fact that it's partially filled somehow related to the question?

Here's a reworked example that's a little better. (Could be better - I didn't give spend a lot of time.)

For the next two questions, we will show you something on the left and something on the right. Choose the answer which, when added to the thing on the left, makes it the same as the thing on the right.

Example: [left: Square containing 3 circles] [right: Square containing 4 circles]
[list of answers, with circle marked correct].

Question 1:

Show 5 smaller cups (shot-glass sized) filled with a dark liquid. Show a measuring cup with lines labelled 1-7, and filled to level 6 with a dark liquid.

Question: How much more ink is needed on the left to make the amount of ink on the right?

Actually, many worlds violates CPT symmetry - worldlines divide only forward in time, not backwards.

Your link provides this objection but also the response: "The splitting is time asymmetric; this observed temporal asymmetry is due to the boundary conditions imposed by the Big Bang". Yudkowsky explains this in a comment in the thread in next paragraph's first link: "If you took one world and extrapolated backward, you'd get many pasts. If you take the many worlds and extrapolate backward, all but one of the resulting pasts will cancel out! Quantum mechanics is time-symmetric." (emphasis mine) So the violation is apparent. In fact, if the laws of physics lead to a Big Crunch, then the same cancellation happens forward in time, with alternate futures canceling out until only only one remains at the crunch point. As far as I know however the consensus seems to be that there won't be a Big Crunch, so the branching continues, perhaps without reality ever reaching a point were cancellations start occurring. Or not.

But the Less Wrong folk go further than Many-Worlds. They also consider Barbour's Timeless physics as most probably correct, what entirely removes time from the equation (literally as is the case). As such what we subjectively experience as time flow, time-dependent causality and entropy increasing, not to mention what we conceptually picture as universes branching, wouldn't be a proper description of what goes on at reality's base level. On the contrary, all states of reality, from the point of zero entropy / one world towards the other extreme of maximum entropy / whatever-worlds would form a static plenum, with causality reframed as a set of mathematical relations between static states.

So, no, not disingenuous at all. Maybe wrong, yes, but still a valid counterpoint.

Actually, many worlds violates CPT symmetry - worldlines divide only forward in time, not backwards.

Your link provides this objection but also the response: "The splitting is time asymmetric; this observed temporal asymmetry is due to the boundary conditions imposed by the Big Bang". Yudkowsky explains this in a comment in the thread in next paragraph's first link: "If you took one world and extrapolated backward, you'd get many pasts. If you take the many worlds and extrapolate backward, all but one of the resulting pasts will cancel out! Quantum mechanics is time-symmetric." (emphasis mine) So the violation is apparent. In fact, if the laws of physics lead to a Big Crunch, then the same cancellation happens forward in time, with alternate futures canceling out until only only one remains at the crunch point. As far as I know however the consensus seems to be that there won't be a Big Crunch, so the branching continues, perhaps without reality ever reaching a point were cancellations start occurring. Or not.

But the Less Wrong folk go further than Many-Worlds. They also consider Barbour's Timeless physics as most probably correct, what entirely removes time from the equation (literally as is the case). As such what we subjectively experience as time flow, time-dependent causality and entropy increasing, not to mention what we conceptually picture as universes branching, wouldn't be a proper description of what goes on at reality's base level. On the contrary, all states of reality, from the point of zero entropy / one world towards the other extreme of maximum entropy / whatever-worlds would form a static plenum, with causality reframed as a set of mathematical relations between static states.

So, no, not disingenuous at all. Maybe wrong, yes, but still a valid counterpoint.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

the 'conciousness' part of Copenhagen is an anthropic bias

It's worse than that. According to defenders of the Many-Worlds interpretation (of which I consider myself one), Copenhagen's collapse has several problems. Less Wrong's Eliezer Yudkowsky has written an extensive introduction to QM from the perspective of the Many-Worlds Interpretation and as part of the series he's extensively criticized the collapse postulate, summarizing its problems thus:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

Given the above considerations, whatever the experiment detected is most certainly not collapse.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

I notice that you haven't addressed that article's use of statements of probability, despite me drawing specific attention to it.

There are two ways in which probabilities are talked about in that site. One is as Bayesian probability, which is a statement about our subjective ignorance (Bayesian probability is the general mathematical framework of which the scientific method, including falseabilism, Occam's Razor etc. are specific applications). Another, this one directly related to QM-proper, is as a distribution of branching worlds within the Many-Worlds interpretation. In this the "probabilities" are a description of the way the system spreads over different worlds, entangling in very predictable ways with the gigantic entangled system that are you and the even more gigantic entangled system that is the branch of reality you occupy. See the Decoherence post and the ones linked from it for details, although, as I said before, it's better to read the whole thing in sequence.

As for Copenhagen, here's how the author of describes the issues with believing in the collapse postulate:

If collapse actually worked the way its adherents say it does, it would be:

1. The only non-linear evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
2. The only non-unitary evolution in all of quantum mechanics.
3. The only non-differentiable (in fact, discontinuous) phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics.
4. The only phenomenon in all of quantum mechanics that is non-local in the configuration space.
5. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates CPT symmetry.
6. The only phenomenon in all of physics that violates Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes).
7. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is acausal / non-deterministic / inherently random.
8. The only phenomenon in all of physics that is non-local in spacetime and propagates an influence faster than light.

WHAT DOES THE GOD-DAMNED COLLAPSE POSTULATE HAVE TO DO FOR PHYSICISTS TO REJECT IT? KILL A GOD-DAMNED PUPPY?

And, for an even more humorous take on the subject, see this small fictional piece by him: If Many-Worlds Had Come First.

Shit, you may have just given me the plot of a new sci-fi book (I'm working on "Whores In Space" right now).

LOL, glad to be of help! :-)

By the way, the part about cryo-preservation was factual. If you haven't signed for it maybe you still can. See here for details. I myself don't because I cannot, it isn't available here in Brazil (that I know), but if I lived where it is available I'd have signed for it long ago, and I still hope I'll be able to.

What to you is the physical meaning of the "amplitudes"?

Configurations and Amplitude

Sounds like a theory from those who don't want to believe consciousness is just a bajillion neurons networked together.

Precisely. Heisenberg's principle is just a consequence of the very deterministic way in which quantum stuff works. To get the position you derive it one way, to get the momentum you derive it in another way. There's no actual uncertainty in any of it, just mathematical properties that people tend to misunderstand.

For a more detailed explanation see this article: The So-Called Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

While I agree that suggestions about what to do are better than just complaining, I think you may want to review your stance on voting: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/

In short: if you really want to make a difference, you have to take back politics from below, possibly even by joining a party, so that you can have a say in who gets to run as candidate.
You can also better control what your representatives are doing and expose or support them if necessary.

Voting is for the lazy, it appeals the masses but if you get only to vote for a lizard or the other, it's mostly a distraction.
Those that control the government are working tirelessly to undermine your power as a citizen.
You are not going to get it back by spending 30' in line to cross a piece of paper every four years or so.
You have to get directly involved.

Note: Psychological studies performed on US undergraduates generally don't apply to humans in general.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/17x/beware_of_weird_psychological_samples/

Remembering the people who were Psych majors in school, I'd say that they probably were the least representative sample of humanity possible.

There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.

Absolutely true, in a mathematical sense even:

There are roughly 300 million people in the United States, of whom only one can be President at any given time.

With 300 million available candidates, many of whom are not nincompoops, why does America keep electing nincompoops to political office?

Sending a message to select 1 out of 300 million possibilities requires 29 bits. So if you vote in only the general election for the Presidency, then some mysterious force narrows the election down to 2 out of 300 million possibilities - exerting 28 bits of decision power - and then you, or rather the entire voting population, exert 1 more bit of decision power. If you vote in a primary election, you may send another 2 or 3 bits worth of message.

Where do the other 25 bits of decision power come from?

(...) Since around half the population is under the age of 35, at least one bit of the missing decision power is exerted by 55 delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Though the "natural-born citizen" clause comes from a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington, a suggestion that was adopted without debate by the Philadelphia Convention.

(...) Likewise, not everyone would want to be President. (But see the hidden box: In principle the option exists of enforcing Presidential service, like jury duty.) How many people would run for President if they had a serious chance at winning? Let's pretend the number is only 150,000. That accounts for another 10 bits.

Then some combination of the party structure, and the media telling complicit voters who voters are likely to vote for, is exerting on the order of 14-15 bits of power over the Presidency; while the voters only exert 3-4 bits. And actually the situation is worse than this, because the media and party structure get to move first. They can eliminate nearly all the variance along any particular dimension. So that by the time you get to choose one of four "serious" "front-running" candidates, that is, the ones approved by both the party structure and the media, you're choosing between 90.8% nincompoop and 90.6% nincompoop.

I seriously think the best thing you can do about the situation, as a voter, is stop trying to be clever. Don't try to vote for someone you don't really like, because you think your vote is more likely to make a difference that way. Don't fret about "electability". Don't try to predict and outwit other voters. Don't treat it as a horse race. Don't worry about "wasting your vote" - it always sends a message, you may as well make it a true message.

(...) Oh - and if you're going to vote at all, vote in the primary. That's where most of your remaining bits and remaining variance have a chance to be exerted."

Source: Stop Voting For Nincompoops.

Yeah, so it does seem strongly like you are disputing definitions http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/. Words don't have absolute Platonic meanings. But even if we grant that and that and say that, it doesn't change the initial point. All those Outer Limits episodes I mentioned clearly fall into the cateory of exploring the impact of technology on humanity. The impact in all of them "awful terrible stuff because scientists are arrogant". So I fail to see your point.

Scientists should take courses on Rational Thinking. That's basically what you're after here, and it has the advantage of specifically targetting the problems you are trying to address, rather than taking the shotgun approach and trying to get every STEM student to become a Renaissance Man.

Where do I start on all the ways that a dictionary argument can be wrong?

Having said that, you do have a point. Looking back on the thread, there are three distinct senses of the word "rational" being employed:

To rational humans "unsubstantiated" means "I don't believe it".

All sorts of rational people believe things that are unsubstantiated.

"Rational" is a property of a claim, belief or process. It is not a property of a person.

All of these claims are true if you pick the definition of "rational" to suit each claim.

Your personal Ugh Fields do not define data or evidence.

If my Lord Jesus Christ chooses to send me to Hell, I shall gladly go there to serve him.

Tempus Fugit, Memento Mori is indeed my watchword. I'm not afraid to die because I know for a fact that death is just the beginning, the beginning of a better chance to serve than my malfunctioning nervous system currently allows me.

But all that is beside the point that in their extreme form of skepticism, the New Atheists have become irrational, removing evidence that should not be removed merely because it activates their personal Ugh fields. Not that religion is free of this either- rational religions try to destroy such superstition, but fundamentalists abound who refuse to look at evidence that pertains to their particular Ugh Fields.

And for the Atheist, their big Ugh Field is the possibility of morality being objective- of there being something larger than them dictating THEIR morality.

I think what you mean is they *go through the motions* of questioning and critical examination, but ultimately rig the outcome, ultimately avoiding their belief systems' real weak points.

Really? What PREDICTIONS did PHLOGISTON theory make?

Read this article on fake causality and apply it to your every day life: http://lesswrong.com/lw/is/fake_causality/

Half joking aside, would you agree that the only atheist sub-group(s) that come close to understanding this would be the Buddhists because it frees a person of all the dogma & symbology?

It depends on the Buddhist branch. Buddhism, being faithful to the middle path, isn't actually atheist, but indifferent to the debate. Certain schools go about not talking about gods at all, such as Zen or Jodo Shinshu; others acknowledge gods but don't care about them, such as Theravada; and others still fully embrace them, such as the Vajrayana schools. Also, all of them have dogmas and tons of symbolism, the freeing of which comes at the end of the process, not its middle. So, not quite.

But there are self-professed Atheist schools that almost get there. The Bayesian one is the most advanced in that regards, at least as far as I can judge these things. See for instance this essay of theirs for an example: Timeless Physics. It's the closest I've ever seen a non-mystic getting to grasp the notion of the Absolute. IMHO, if there's actual potential in Atheism, it's going to be developed by them, just give it a few centuries or, best case scenario, decades.

I'm very curious how you were able to come to see/be the full potential of Atheism -- knowing both its strengths and weaknesses? It is very rare to find a person who has that deep grasp of the fundamentals.

Well, I've had this habit of going after both sides on any argument then attempting to identify the common ground upon which they're battling and build from there for as long as I remember myself studying anything. and as such my intellectual references ended up spread all over the board. Over time it adds up. :-)

By the way: Currently I'm a polytheist, following both Shinto and the Shingon Buddhist school (esoteric Vajrayana), with a background in Continental Philosophy and the Traditionalist School of Rene Guenon. I've also written more on the theism vs. atheism debate replying to questions on Quora, so maybe you're interested. Too bad I still haven't had time to collect these bits and pieces into more permanent texts. Anyway, let's keep in touch!

No, if you believe in an invisible being, then you believe in undetectable particles that only interact with our universe at the whim of some being that contains an infinite amount of energy, yet is totally undetectable.

I'm pretty sure that everyone that isn't insane is actually an atheist. Those that claim otherwise are a lot more likely to simply believe in belief, rather than actually believing. If they REALLY believed, they would last about twenty minutes in the modern world before they were arrested for stoning someone to death for wearing tassels in the wrong place or some other such insane law from the Bible. Of course, that is Christians. I don't know much about the consequences of true belief in other religions.

I don't think the third and fourth centuries AD really count as "the Middle Ages", especially given that he lived in the part of the Roman Empire that would last another 800 years.

Also, if you have "experienced" God, then you probably have some sort of personality disorder, or you simply believe in belief. If you really believed in the Christian God, you would be doing all manner of totally insane things that would quickly get you removed from society, probably not long after you had stoned someone to death for eating meat on a Friday.

You make climate change sound like the invisible dragon in my garage.

A PhD in English is certainly not required to ensure good communication. You've fallen victim to the Fallacy of Grey - "not a professional in English teaching" is not the same thing as "unable to communicate well". Strive for perfection in everything you do, as Sir Henry Royce tells us.