Timestamps: 00:00 -- Introductory sequence 00:27 -- Introduction and Background Information 03:02 -- Start and Outline of Interview Goals 04:55 -- Price & the study of existential risk 10:32 -- Are existential risk and Price's academic work separate? 12:30 -- The connection between decisions and time, part 1 15:20 -- The connection between decisions, time, and cause 19:33 -- Price explains his work on retrocausality 26:21 -- How retrocausality resolve's Bell's Inequalities 29:41 -- Other physicist sympathizers with retrocausality 34:06 -- Zig-Zag Causation, Costa de Beauregard, and Entanglement 36:52 -- 1950's retrocausality versus empirical evidence today 39:00 -- Response to the main objection to retrocausality 42:02 -- Lev Vaidman's use of retrocausality for many worlds 43:11 -- How to judge /evaluate otherwise equivalent theories 47:00 -- Why breaking disciplinary barriers is justifiable 51:47 -- What Price is working on now
This was a good discussion. Thank you. I would like to quickly share some of my thoughts. Retrocausality has a human dimension which I term moral non-commutativity, meaning that the order in which we make moral operations does matter. In discussions with professionals in psychology I have been told that they do sometimes have patients which do not seem to observe the difference between "my children starve, therefore I steal" and "I steal, and my children also starve." Taken to an extreme this psychological interaction of time-travel morality seems to have an effect on the integrity of the observer, meaning that a retrocausal Consequentialist observer is not the same as a classical Deontologist causal observer. This does feel like something with deep implications for what kind of human does the surviving. Thank you for reading.
Thanks for your comment and interest. To the extent that retrocausality accurately describes the dynamics of nature, it would certainly have a human dimension with important implications for who survives, and whether we survive as a whole. Humans, after all, are products of nature and it is nature, i.e. physics, that ultimately determines what lives and what dies. Thanks again for your interest.
I suggest if Price does not have the expertise, he could consider not pushing this nonsense, at least until he has a long talk with David Albert or Tim Maudlin.
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry. Logic: In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes. Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions: Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6 Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7 Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8 The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon: "e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e) Mathematics: Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics. In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership: Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7 Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6 Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5 This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships. Physics: Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity. In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values: Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4 Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6 Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8 The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm. Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement. Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system: Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7 Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5 Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9 The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality: "O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena. By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Thank you for your insightful and detailed comment. The use of both/and logic to model quantum phenomena is compelling and highlights the observer's role in quantum mechanics. The challenge, from my perspective, is to draw out the implications of this for decision theory and political theory -- if we want to increase our chances of surviving and flourishing. That, in any case, is our main concern at EISM. If you have any ideas in this regard, I'd be very interested. Thanks again for your time.
Karl Friston's free energy principle is probably consistent with the idea that favors those hypotheses of the world that can lead to risk management by agents (all else being equal)! So, there would seem to be a lot of overlap with the EISM (and including the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk) and the folks at the Active Inference Insitute; probably worth looking into! Cheers!
Thanks for your input. I agree that his conception of free energy, Markov blankets, and active inference are closely connected, and maximally useful, within something like a retrocausal framework. In fact, Friston has served as a major inspiration and as our chief scientist for our biggest grant application to date. Thanks again for your comment and interest.
Timestamps:
00:00 -- Introductory sequence
00:27 -- Introduction and Background Information
03:02 -- Start and Outline of Interview Goals
04:55 -- Price & the study of existential risk
10:32 -- Are existential risk and Price's academic work separate?
12:30 -- The connection between decisions and time, part 1
15:20 -- The connection between decisions, time, and cause
19:33 -- Price explains his work on retrocausality
26:21 -- How retrocausality resolve's Bell's Inequalities
29:41 -- Other physicist sympathizers with retrocausality
34:06 -- Zig-Zag Causation, Costa de Beauregard, and Entanglement
36:52 -- 1950's retrocausality versus empirical evidence today
39:00 -- Response to the main objection to retrocausality
42:02 -- Lev Vaidman's use of retrocausality for many worlds
43:11 -- How to judge /evaluate otherwise equivalent theories
47:00 -- Why breaking disciplinary barriers is justifiable
51:47 -- What Price is working on now
This was a good discussion. Thank you. I would like to quickly share some of my thoughts.
Retrocausality has a human dimension which I term moral non-commutativity, meaning that the order in which we make moral operations does matter. In discussions with professionals in psychology I have been told that they do sometimes have patients which do not seem to observe the difference between "my children starve, therefore I steal" and "I steal, and my children also starve." Taken to an extreme this psychological interaction of time-travel morality seems to have an effect on the integrity of the observer, meaning that a retrocausal Consequentialist observer is not the same as a classical Deontologist causal observer. This does feel like something with deep implications for what kind of human does the surviving.
Thank you for reading.
Thanks for your comment and interest. To the extent that retrocausality accurately describes the dynamics of nature, it would certainly have a human dimension with important implications for who survives, and whether we survive as a whole. Humans, after all, are products of nature and it is nature, i.e. physics, that ultimately determines what lives and what dies. Thanks again for your interest.
I suggest if Price does not have the expertise, he could consider not pushing this nonsense, at least until he has a long talk with David Albert or Tim Maudlin.
Thanks, I would love to hear more.
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry.
Logic:
In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes.
Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions:
Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6
Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7
Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8
The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon:
"e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e)
Mathematics:
Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics.
In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership:
Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7
Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6
Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5
This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships.
Physics:
Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity.
In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values:
Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4
Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6
Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8
The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm.
Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement.
Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system:
Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7
Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5
Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9
The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality:
"O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event
This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena.
By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Thank you for your insightful and detailed comment. The use of both/and logic to model quantum phenomena is compelling and highlights the observer's role in quantum mechanics. The challenge, from my perspective, is to draw out the implications of this for decision theory and political theory -- if we want to increase our chances of surviving and flourishing. That, in any case, is our main concern at EISM. If you have any ideas in this regard, I'd be very interested. Thanks again for your time.
Karl Friston's free energy principle is probably consistent with the idea that favors those hypotheses of the world that can lead to risk management by agents (all else being equal)! So, there would seem to be a lot of overlap with the EISM (and including the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk) and the folks at the Active Inference Insitute; probably worth looking into! Cheers!
Thanks for your input. I agree that his conception of free energy, Markov blankets, and active inference are closely connected, and maximally useful, within something like a retrocausal framework. In fact, Friston has served as a major inspiration and as our chief scientist for our biggest grant application to date. Thanks again for your comment and interest.
Shared❤
Huw Price on Retroviral Word Salad, AI, and Human Gullibility
Thanks for your comment. Let me know if you'd like to talk about this on camera.