|
Author
|
Topic: Karl D. Stephan: Tegmark’s Parallel Universes: A Challenge to Intelligent Design?
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 14. May 2003 09:35
Maxes parallel universes is derived from inferences made from empirical data in QM while CTMU is based loosely on logic, cybernetics, set theory, information theory, mereology, philosophy, physics, theology and so on with a heavy dose of neologisms. Because of its breadth, as I noted earlier, it is capable of virtually accomodating any theory that comes up - in any field - after all, its a (melting pot of) "reality" theory ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
But to be logical alone is not enough especially when a theory is supposed to be isomorphic to reality. We have vacuous truths which are logical statements that dont really say anything for example "all elephants inside a loaf of bread are pink".
The statement is vacuously true but there really is no consequence of it being true. A statement can be logical but that in itself does not confer any veracity to the claims it makes.
Lets look at a specific example from CTMU:
quote:
The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive
syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines
itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational
constraint.
As Pim van Meurs correctly noted, CTMU makes claims that are not self-evident and CML does not bother to offer any empirical evidence to back up his claims. From the above quote alone - what is the evidence of the existence of the UBT? from whence arose the UBT? has the UBT been exhausted? why does the universe refine itself from the UBT? why is the UBT free of informational constraint and how do we know this?
In short, CTMU raises more questions than offer any explanations. If offers a beautiful model based entirely on philosophical and abstract ideas. Very short on empirical data. More importantly, even if one were to accept the model in its entirety, it offers nothing substantive. It can't be falsified or tested. Its like Tao Te Ching.
Lao Tzu says:
The weak overcomes the strong and the soft overcomes the hard
Of course on looking around, one can reason that water (soft) can "erode" away a hard rock and the above statement becomes true.
But what is the importance of knowing this "truism"?
Absolutely nothing.
Welcome to CTMU.
One may even think the high-sounding neologisms are meant to hoodwink one into thinking they are reading/learning something significant. But when the rocking-chair stops rocking you are still sitting at the same place.
I have noticed repeatedly that if one holds a different "understanding" of CTMU, the CTMU vindicators resort to "go and read it and understand it" mantra. Reading and understanding CTMU does not entail that one holds the same position towards it as the author and/or CTMU proponents.
PVM asked questions above that have not been answered. For the benefit of the moderator (who is no doubt concerned about the path this thread is taking), this thread asks about whether Tegmarkian PUs are a threat to ID. CTMU is pro-ID and if Tegmarks ideas can be shown to be consistent with CTMU (which has not been done), then it follows that Tegmarks PUs are not a threat to ID.
In order to refute claims that Tegmarks idea are not consistent with CTMU, we have to delve into CTMU a bit, juxtapose it with Tegmarks idea and expose it for what it is.
In claiming consistency with Tegmarks idea, CTMU can also bootstrap itself from what is (an abstract philosophical construct with no empirical support) is and claim empirical support. To slam that door shut, its important to underline what CTMU is.
A flute.
Jasonyoung notes correctly that "both Tegmarkian multiverse theory and the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe equate physical reality to a formal system..." but as far as his statement that "...the validity of each is contingent on its adherence to the logical and language theoretic criteria of formal systems" goes, Tegmarks construct doesn't claim existence of outlandish ideas like the universe having a purpose and being guided by a principle (telic principle). His isomorphisms are quite narrow and straightforward. He doesnt create - just infers. CTMU creates a lot - without empirical support.
SCSPL compels us to a monic worldview while at the same time CTMU compels us to hold a dualistic worldview of an infocognitive reality. CML "resolves" this paradox by coming up with new terms like hology, autology, infocognitive monism etc without actually satisfactorily resolving it. Just asking us to accept that tautologies and paradoxes are fine.
[ 14. May 2003, 13:32: Message edited by: Jacob Aliet ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 14. May 2003 13:53
Jacob says that "Maxes parallel universes is derived from empirical data." I don't know where Jacob got this idea, but it's dead wrong. Jacob also says that "all elephants inside a loaf of bread are pink". I believe he means to offer this as some kind of CTMU analogy...and again, that's wrong.
Jacob says that "a statement can be logical but that in itself does not confer any veracity to the claims it makes." This is true on one level, but ceases to be true with respect to scientific applications of model theory (which involve semantic correspondences). The CTMU is expressly formulated at and above the model-theoretic level.
Jacob quotes me as follows: "The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint." From this, he infers that the CTMU "makes claims that are not self-evident". But that's not true, given that everything in the CTMU stems from necessary features of any possible (valid) TOE. Jacob goes on to say that "CML does not bother to offer any empirical evidence to back up his claims." That's not true either; take, for example, accelerating cosmic expansion. Nobody even comes close to explaining this in any non-CTMU way except by postulating strange, inexplicable forms of "dark energy" and so on, which of course merely begs the essential question(s).
Jacob asks "From the above quote alone - what is the evidence of the existence of the UBT?" The evidence is logical; it's one of the language-theoretic criteria we've been talking about. To put it as simply as possible, unbound telesis is simply the logical complement of constraint with respect to syntax-state relationships, and is a requisite of any attempt to meaningfully define or quantify constraints such as physical states and laws of nature. Jacob asks "from whence arose the UBT?" Since UBT is nil constraint, it doesn't need to have "arisen"; causes are necessary only in the presence of informational content (that's really the point). Jacob also asks "has the UBT been exhausted?" How can something that is unbound be exhausted, given that exhaustion is a function that would have to bind its argument? Jacob wonders "Why is the UBT free of informational constraint and how do we know this?" We know this by definition...specifically, by a definition logically required in order to form any self-contained description of nature and causality. Jacob goes on to opine that "the CTMU raises more questions than offer any explanations." If this is true, then it is true only within the minds of people who fail to understand it.
Jacob goes on to assert that the CTMU is of absolutely "no importance". Wrong again; the CTMU is that branch of logic in which formal theories, properly including any well-formed scientific theory, meet their universes of discourse, AKA nature. Jacob reiterates that the CTMU is "based entirel[y] on abstract and philosophical ideas" and is "very short on empirical data." Not really, given that the CTMU constitutes a necessary explanation of accelerating cosmic expansion, so-called "quantum nonlocality", and even the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Indeed, if one considers relativity theory and quantum mechanics to have been empirically confirmed, then the CTMU is confirmed right along with them, since it harbors basic explanations for some of the most essential and problematic structural elements of quantum mechanics and relativity. Jacob then elaborates on his misunderstanding of the CTMU by restating in so many words that it is of absolutely no importance...to which one can only respond, thanks for the psychological insight.
In addition, Jacob opines that "the [CTMU] neologisms are meant to hoodwink one into thinking they are reading/learning something significant. But when the chair stops rocking you are still sitting at the same place." Again, this is of clinical interest at best. But to drive home his "point", Jacob points out that "when one looks at Maxes article, there are no strange words. I only needed check up ergodicity. Thats another trivial difference." However, Max uses many neologisms including (but not necessarily limited to): multiverse, Level I multiverse, Level II multiverse, Level III multiverse, Level IV multiverse, bird perspective, frog perspective, ensemble theory (cosmological sense), chaotic inflation (not Max's neologism, but novel and misleading nonetheless), and so on. While I'd agree that one need not crack a standard dictionary to look for some of these, one is even more unlikely to find them in a standard dictionary if one chooses to do so. So if Jacob or anyone else really thinks that all of Max's neologisms are "based on whats known, now whats been modelled from a portentous imagination," then perhaps he needs to take a closer look at "multiverse theory". (Not that I deny Max and others the option to coin new words and phrases in developing their ideas; every word and phrase in every language on earth was originally coined by someone.)
By defending the CTMU from this benighted sort of criticism, am I deviating from the topic of this thread? No. First, I'm responding to the remarks of others in this thread. More importantly, the CTMU answers many of the questions that Max is trying to answer with multiverse theory, particularly as regards ID, and is ultimately implied by Max's own premises and "predictions", including his proposed (but measurement-challenged) theoretical extraction of the "generic" implications of conflating formal structures and physical reality. Again, if one wishes to discuss the operations of arithmetic on any but the lowest level of discourse, one had better be prepared to refer to "arithmetic" as the source of these operations...or at least prepared to let others refer to it in clarification.
A final suggestion: rather than undertaking these overblown, content-free criticisms of the CTMU, why don't Jacob and others simply admit that they haven't put themselves to the trouble of understanding the CTMU (which lack of effort is in any event as obvious as it can possibly be)? That way, should I choose to participate further in this thread, we can talk directly about the many weaknesses of multiverse theory.
[ 14. May 2003, 15:22: Message edited by: Christopher M. Langan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 14. May 2003 17:27
Christopher M. Langan, I may indeed have misunderstood the sense in which the universe is linguistic in nature. In Tegmark's ensemble theory it is true that there is a universe that is isomorphic to the real numbers. That universe may not the one we live in and it may not even contain any conscious beings, but it would exist physically. The "fact" that such universes exist raises the possibility that our own universe is isomorphic to some uncountably large mathematical structure. If our universe is isomorphic to, say, our mathematical formalization of Newtonian point particle mechanics, then our universe cannot be a language (a language has countably many elements, while such a universe would have e.g. uncountably many moments of time).
But perhaps you simply meant that the axioms of the mathematical structure, to which our universe is isomorphic, is a kind of language? In that case I have no further comments, since I neither think it is a remarkable nor an objectionable thing to say.
Erik
PS. The requested admission: I have neither read the CTMU paper in the ISCID archive nor do I at present have any intention of doing so. It is too long, the frequency of funny philosophical terminology is too high, and my expectations of finding something of significant interest are too small for me to find it worth investing time on reading it. DS.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 14. May 2003 19:37
Erik, you conjecture that I "simply meant that the axioms of the mathematical structure, to which our universe is isomorphic, is a kind of language." Aside from the fact that this merely belabors the obvious, so far, so good. But then you go on: "In that case I have no further comments, since I neither think it is a remarkable nor an objectionable thing to say." SCSPL actually goes a bit farther than that, but since you show no special understanding of the implications of even the basic level of linguistic structure you're considering - and some of them are indeed remarkable - I find it hard to take your viewpoint very seriously.
You then confirm this judgment by admitting that you've "neither read the CTMU paper in the ISCID archive nor do (you) at present have any intention of doing so. It is too long, the frequency of funny philosophical terminology is too high, and (your) expectations of finding something of significant interest are too small for (you) to find it worth investing time on reading it."
Although I find this more than a little rude, I also find it unsurprising. So I'll settle for your admission that you have nary a clue about the CTMU or the (philosophical) level of discourse on which it and the problems it addresses are formulated, and leave it at that.
[ 14. May 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: Christopher M. Langan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 14. May 2003 21:08
I confess I haven't read Dr.Stephan's paper, yet. Nor most of this thread. Too far over my head, I fear. But I do remember reading something in Dembski's No Free Lunch, where he addresses the possibility of infinite universes. If I remember correctly, he argued that even if there were an infinite number of universes, it wouldn't affect his argument for ID. If I remember, this further argument ran something like this: Even in an infinite number of universes, the probability of specified complexity being produced by chance will always be far less than it being produced by intelligence. For example, in an infinite number of universes, there will exist universes in which computers were not the result of intelligent design, but were produced by chance. However, the number of universes where this is the case will always be far less than the number of universes where they were produced by intelligent design. Therefore, it will always be more reasonable to conclude that we exist in a universe where computers were produced by intelligent design. Likewise, it will always be more reasonable to conclude that we exist in a universe where life was produced by intelligent design.
That sounds like a fairly reasonable argument to me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Parallel
Member
Member # 744
|
posted 14. May 2003 22:28
Mr. Langan, I'm confused. First you argued that you could win in a "priority dispute" over ideas being attributed to Max Tegmark based on what you wrote in 1989 about "nested virtual realities". Then you wrote
quote:
I think we may have a little misunderstanding regarding the manner in which the CTMU encompasses other theories. Since the CTMU is built on the TOE called "logic", let's use logic as an example. Logic is a required syntactic ingredient of any theory, which is just another way of saying that logic descriptively includes any correct theory. This doesn't mean that every theory is logical; it means that on the assumption of its correctness, it is expressible in terms of logic. Logic is thus more than an "unnecessary wrapper" for theories; theories fail without it. Theories thus have only three possible states: in verifiable conformance with logic; in tentative conformance with logic; in the garbage bin. The CTMU "includes" a theory like Tegmark's in exactly this sense. Like logic, the CTMU contains no assumptions; all of its principles, along with its explanatory power, are self-evident on the model-theoretic level of discourse (at least to one who is actually paying attention to it and knows the subject matter).
where you seem to argue that your CTMU contains Tegmarkian ideas by mere inference, rather than by an overlap of explicitly articulated concepts. In short, you seem to expand your right to priority to such an extent that you could claim priority over any idea published after 1989 so long as you claim that it can interface with logic allegedly inherent in your 1989 paper. By that standard the Arabs, not Newton, should be credited for calculus since it interfaces with their arithmetic.
Even more, it seems inappropriate for you to claim in a public forum some kind of priority over Tegmark's work and in the next breath tell the public in effect "good luck" when it comes to locating the rare journal wherein you wrote what you claim precedes and overlaps Tegmark. Given your expansive network of websites promoting your CTMU, why is that important priority-setting 1989 paper not online available to the same public to which you broadcast your priority claim?
"The universe ... is both One and Many." Dionysius The Areopagite
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 15. May 2003 00:15
I would like to extend the discussion to address some of the objections raised. For instance Jacob suggested that parallel universes are wasteful. Is Jacob correct?
I would like to introduce the works of two other scholars in multiverses, Schmidhuber and Standish.
Standish comments in his paper "Why Occam's Razor" on Schmidhuber's approach
quote:
"Since the set of programs (finite length bitstrings) is isomorphic to the set of whole numbers "N", an enumeration of "N" is sufficient to generate the ensemble that contains our universe. The information content of this complete set is precisely zero, as no bits are specified. This has been called the ``zero information principle''"
Thus it seems that the information content of such multiverses may be quite small and perhaps much smaller than the information content for a single universe.
Standish continues "An alternative connection between the two ensembles is that the Schmidhuber ensemble is a self-consistent mathematical structure, and is therefore an element of the Tegmark one. However, all this implies is that one element of the ensemble may in fact generate the complete ensemble again, a point made by Schmidhuber in that the ``Great Programmer'' exists many times, over and over in a recursive manner within his ensemble. This is now clearly true also of the Tegmark ensemble. "
A self consisten mathematical structure includes a 'great programmer' who exists time and time again in a recursive manner. (MDT anyone?)
But the most interesting statement is found in
quote:
So lets try a physicist's approach, which is to assume a few, fairly uncontro- versial things about consciousness, without pretending to know the full story, and see how far this gets us. Let us assume two things in particular -- that the observer observes by selecting a partial description from the ensemble, and that there is a psychological experience of time in order to do the observations. If one additionally assumes the standard axioms of probability theory, and then crank the handle, Schroedinger's equation pops out, along with most of the structure of Quantum Mechanics!
Surprising as this result may be, two other scientists have independently come to similar conclusions, each with a slightly different set of starting ingredients. Bruno Marchal[8, 9] started by assuming a particular form of computa- tionalism, as well as what he calls Arithmetic Platonism (essentially a plenitude structure like above), and strong form of the Church Turing thesis, and ended up predicting that the observers knowledge should obey quantum logic. Roy
Frieden[7] started with an observer embedded in 4-D Minkowski space-time, and asked what happens out of game where nature tries to hide its true reality from the observer. Probability theory enters through the concept of Fisher Information. In the most general form of the problem, he ends up with the Klein-Gordon equation, a covariant form of the Schroedinger equation. It is as if, in the words of Marchal, "Physics is but a branch of (machine) psychology". Even though each of these efforts are tentative, and the details differ, there does seem to be an "elephant" that blind men are discovering.
Chris, you may not feel the need to take people's viewpoints seriously but Erik and others have raised a good point in that your writings may not be that accessible to the general and perhaps even much of the scientific population. I myself have tried to read and understand your claims and believe me I have tried... and failed.
Certainly a claim of theory of everything has to show that it is more than Feynman's spoof example of a TOE.
Until that moment when your writings become accessible to the general and scientific public I understand why people may not be interested in attempting such endeavor.
You suggest that the criticism of the CTMU are overblown and content-free but an assertion by itself does not carry much weight and many good questions have been raised that could benefit from a more detailed answer.
I believe that accessibility of an idea is the responsibility of the author. A good idea is only as good as the linguistic ability of the author which allows him to communicate these ideas in a manner which can create enthusiasm and curiosity in the reader. I have read several papers by Standish and Tegmark and Schmidhuber which are far more detailed in their physics and mathematics and yet quite accessible. One should not blame the reader for either their inabilities to comprehend the arguments or an alienation that causes in them a disinterests in pursuing these ideas any further.
Jules, I have a copy of NFL and I will see what I can find out on your suggestion that multiverses may not be a problem to ID because it seems reasonable to assume that we exist in a universe in which life was designed. Surely applying such logic to infinite possibilities may complicate matters a little bit.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 15. May 2003 02:38
Pim, you deplore my reluctance to take the viewpoints of certain people seriously, stating that my writings "may not be that accessible to the general and perhaps even much of the scientific population." Insofar as your point is constructive, it is well taken. But I'm afraid I see no percentage in squandering time on thankless attempts to educate people who show every sign of having closed minds and bad attitudes, especially when such people typically bring but little to the table of intellectual commerce. It simply wouldn't be a good investment of my time at this point. On the other hand, I think I've been more than generous in explaining my ideas to those who sincerely display interest.
Regarding your own (failed) attempts to read and understand the CTMU, I wish I could help you with that. But when it comes right down to it, I've already more than established its superiority to Feynman's spoof example of a TOE, and I've already made it at least partially accessible to the general public (I know this because I run a list on which people regularly demonstrate their understanding of the theory). As for scientists who claim that they can understand nothing of it at all...well, that's something I've learned to take with a grain of salt.
I'm a little nonplused when you call overblown, content-free criticisms of the CTMU "good questions" that "could benefit from a more detailed answer". I've been giving detailed answers to such questions right here in this thread, and I'm at a loss as to why you and certain others don't seem to understand word one. Thus, when you say that "the accessibility of an idea is the responsibility of the author", I think it's appropriate to point out that communication is always a two-way street.
You go on to remark that "a good idea is only as good as the linguistic ability of the author which allows him to communicate these ideas in a manner which can create enthusiasm and curiosity in the reader" as though this somehow relieves the reader of all responsibility in the communication process. I naturally disagree. You then say you've read papers by Standish, Tegmark and Schmidhuber which are "far more detailed in their physics and mathematics" than my own. Well, I've looked at some of those papers too, and they're physically and mathematically vapid. In fact, they're virtually devoid of novel physical insight, and as for metaphysical insight, they fall somewhere between clueless and tentative. In any case, this particular debate isn't about flashing equations; it's about establishing a model in which equations can be interpreted to explanatory effect with regard to certain philosophical issues.
If you're really baffled by something I've said, just ask for clarification. If your question is sincere and politely phrased, you just might get an intelligible answer. On the other hand, if what we're talking about is some nebulous cloud of ineffable confusion regarding every single word I write, then please pardon my reluctance to invite more of the same.
[ 15. May 2003, 02:44: Message edited by: Christopher M. Langan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 15. May 2003 03:23
quote:
Mr. Langan, I'm confused. First you argued that you could win in a "priority dispute" over ideas being attributed to Max Tegmark based on what you wrote in 1989 about "nested virtual realities".
Yes, Mr. Parallel, I quite agree - your confusion is spectacular. Although it's you who is obviously trying to manufacture a "priority dispute" here, you keep on insisting that it's me. All I've done is make relevant statements of fact, e.g. that the CTMU predates recent work on "the multiverse", and that Max Tegmark's work can be interpreted in the CTMU in a certain specific way. You, on the other hand, keep generating ominous insinuations to the effect that I'm somehow accusing Max of plagiarism or theft of credit when I've repeatedly stated that I intend nothing of the kind. I resent this, and for the record, I request that you restrain yourself.
Not that it makes any further difference, but in a certain important respect, likening the CTMU to Arabian algebra and multiverse theory to Newtonian calculus is rather misleading on your part. Just as the calculus is mathematically more advanced than arithmetic, the CTMU is mathematically more advanced than multiverse theory; after all, unlike Max, I've actually described a large part of the mathematical structure of my theory. In this respect, the CTMU would play the role of calculus rather than arithmetic in your misguided example.
May we now lay this "priority dispute" nonsense belatedly to rest? Thanks for your cooperation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 15. May 2003 07:35
Pim van Meurs wrote: "Chris, you may not feel the need to take people's viewpoints seriously but Erik and others have raised a good point in that your writings may not be that accessible to the general and perhaps even much of the scientific population."
Actually, that is not my point. I have criticized the ID movement for producing popular publications before it has produced any genuine science to popularize. Langan, on the other hand, seem to want everyone to go read his most technical paper. If anything, I think Langan should be commended for not having prematurely popularized his work. It is only healthy for Langan to primarily want get recognized by those who can fully understand his ideas. My point was simply to answer a direct request: Langan requested that people admit that they haven't put effort into understanding his stuff (as if the default human behaviour is, or should be, to intensely study his writings) and I obliged. I posted in this thread with the intention of understanding and commenting on Karl D. Stephan's article and then I got a little distracted by some statements about the CTMU that appeared strange.
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
Parallel
Member
Member # 744
|
posted 15. May 2003 07:50
Mr. Langan, your response is nothing short of incredulous. Anyone who has followed your posts here can see that you have expressly asserted that you could win a "priority dispute" (as you called it) regarding your claim that "the entirety of ensemble theory exists implicitly in the CTMU". You even cited an exclusive journal in which you claim to have published something that predates and overlaps Tegmark's work.
Even more, your recent reply is the second time that you've inserted the unnecessary and inflammatory word "plagiarism" into this matter. Nowhere have I implied that you are accusing Tegmark of plagiarism - it's clear to me that you have made no such accusation. I merely request that you support your claim of prior publication with factual evidence.
Again, given your expansive network of websites promoting your CTMU, why is your important priority-setting 1989 paper not online available to the same public to which you have broadcast a priority claim?
"The universe ... is both One and Many." Dionysius The Areopagite
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher M. Langan
Member
Member # 264
|
posted 15. May 2003 11:17
quote:
Mr. Langan, your response is nothing short of incredulous.
First, Mr. Parallel, I think you may have wanted to say "incredible" instead of "incredulous" (despite my credible response, you're the one who's apparently incredulous). Second, I don't care what you think my response is. Third, you and you alone are choosing to interpret a date, 1989, and a fact, namely that multiverse theory can be interpreted in the CTMU, as a "priority dispute". Fourth, each time I said the bad words "plagiarism" and "priority dispute", it was because I was being harassed by you or somebody else and/or wanted to make it clear that I think Max is entitled to credit for his own work. Fifth, I can substantiate my claims with factual evidence, but as far as I can tell, you're neither polite nor important enough to merit the effort. Sixth, many people have websites, some of them extensive, on which they do not make all of their copyrighted work available to anyone for nothing but a mouse click. And lucky seventh, kindly get off my back before I'm forced to refer your case to a moderator. Thank you.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
