date:20140127



On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:


On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that  
p is true in at least one world.


You need just use a conditional (if). The word asked was if.

OK?

OK. I think I see. p becomes if p is true rather than p is true

Yes.

Rereading a previews post I ask myself if this is well understood.

I have tended to work on the basis that 'p' means 'p is true'


That is correct.




- to make it easier to get my head around what an expression like  
[]p - p means.


?

p - q means: if p is true then q is true. (or means, equivalently 'p  
is false or q is true')


In fact p - q is a sort of negation of p. It means p if false  
(unless q is true).



I realise it could also mean if p is false in all worlds, that  
implies it is false in this one



Here you talk like if   p - q   implies ~p - ~q.

But p - q is equivalent with ~q - ~p, not with ~p - ~q

Socrates is human - Socrates is mortal does not imply Socrates is  
not human - Socrates is not mortal.  Socrates could be my dog, for  
example.


But Socrates is human - Socrates is mortal does imply Socrates is  
not mortal - Socrates is not human


Keep in mind that p - q is ~p V q. Then (if you see that ~~p = p, and  
that p V q = q V p).


~p - ~q  = ~~p v ~q = p V ~q = ~q V p = q - p.  (not p - q).  OK?





You said that we cannot infer anything from Alicia song as we don't  
know if his theory/song  is true.
But the whole point of logic is in the art of deriving and reasoning  
without ever knowing if a premise is true or not. Indeed, we even  
want to reason independetly of any interpretation (of the atoical  
propositions).


Yes, I do appreciate that is the point. I was a bit thrown by the  
word usage with Alicia, if A is singing...everybody loves my  
baby...can we deduce... I mean, I often sing all sorts of things  
that I don't intend to be self-referential (e.g. I am the Walrus)  
so I felt the need to add a little caveat.


OK.

Let me try to be clear.

From the truth of  Everybody loves my baby  my baby loves nobody  
but me you have deduced correctly  the proposition everybody loves  
me.  (with me = Alicia, and, strangely enough, = the baby).


From the truth of Alicia song Everybody loves my baby  my baby  
loves nobody  ,  we can only deduce that everybody loves Alicia or  
Alicia is not correct. In that last case either someone does not love  
the baby, or the baby does not love only her, maybe the baby loves  
someone else, secretly.




That error is done by those who believe that I defend the truth of  
comp, which I never do.
In fact we never know if a theory is true (cf Popper). That is why  
we do theories. We can prove A - B, without having any clues if A  
is false (in which case A - B is trivial), or A is true.

I will come back on this. It is crucially important.

I agree. I think psychologically it's hard to derive the results  
from a theory mechanically, without at least having some idea that  
it could be true. But obviously one can, as with Alicia.


You are right. Most of the time, mathematicians are aware of what they  
want to prove. They work topdown, using their intuition and  
familiarity with the subject. To be sure, very often too, they will  
prove a different theorem than the one they were thinking about. In  
some case they can even prove the contrary, more or less like Gödel  
for his 1931 result. He thought he could prove the consistency of the  
Hilbert program, but the math reality kicked back.


Nevertheless, the level of rigor in math today is such that in the  
paper, you will have to present the proof in a way showing that anyone  
could extract a formal proof of it, whose validity can be checked  
mechanically in either directly in predicate first order calculus, or  
in a theory which admits a known description in first order predicate  
calculus, like ZF, category theory.


All physical theories admits such description (like classical physics,  
quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc.).
Actually those theories does not even climb very high on the ordinal  
vertical ladder (of set theory).


So, the concrete rational talk between scientists consists in proofs  
amenable to the formal notion of proofs, which is indeed only a  
sequence of formula obtained by the iteration of the modus ponens rule.
technically, some proofs in analysis can be obtained or analysed in  
term of iterating that rule in the constructive transfinite, but this  
will be for another day.


But for now, we are not really concerned with deduction, as we look  
only at the semantics of CPL and propositional modal formulas.






A good example is Riemann Hypothesis (RH). We don't know if it is  
true, but thousand of papers study its consequence.
If later we prove the RH, we will get a bunch of beautiful new  
theorem.
If we discover that RH leads to a contradiction, then we refute RH,  
and lost all those theorems,

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 26 Jan 2014, at 13:13, ronaldheld wrote:

Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth  
buying this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic  
universe, UDA,etc?


I would certainly not recommend it if you are interested in cooking  
pizza.


Nor even in the UDA, I'm afraid.

Tell me what you search, and I might recommend the best book, imo   
imt (in my taste)


To be sure, for the UDA you don't need to be a believer. You need  
only to believe the elementary law of addition, and multiplication,  
and assume that the brain is a machine. For AUDA, you need only the  
elementary arithmetic.


Bruno




Ronald

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King  
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear LizR,

  I try to (have some idea what I am talking about). I just have  
lost the desire to explain myself. I made my case already.


Well, OK, fine by me. I didn't see a case made, only a definition /  
ontological assumption, which I was attempting to clarify. I guess  
if I had time to read that paper (and all the others that get  
linked) I might have had a better idea of what backs up this  
definition:


   I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and  
instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:

1) a sequence of events
2) a transition from one event to another.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
 very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
 or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.


Dark matter was discovered in 1932; and Einstein did at least predict one
form of dark energy. One thing of major significance that hasn't been
discovered was the Big Bang, which wouldn't be discovered (and named by
Fred Hoyle) until around the early 60s.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 26 Jan 2014, at 20:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Stephen,

To combine my responses to several of your posts...

I sort of agree with your notion of multiple realities but I would  
argue these are not the fundamental reality and we must assume a  
more fundamental reality with the same laws of nature, rules of  
logic, and fine tuning, etc. that these all occur within. Without  
that it seems to me there could be no possible communication between  
your realities and that they would not even be part of the same  
universe.


A theory of completely separate realities not part of a single  
common reality cannot explain the fact that the laws of physics, the  
laws of logic, and the fine tuning, the laws of chemistry, the  
current state of the universe, are the same for all observers. There  
must be a common reality that includes these facts and the observers  
and their separate realities in which those observers exist for that  
to be true.


My definition of reality is simple and very general and takes these  
points into consideration:


Reality includes everything that exists, without exception, whatever  
that may be.



Including square circles?




The multiple realities you are proposing are what I would describe  
as the multiple internal mental simulations of my single reality in  
which all observers must exist to be in the same universe and  
communicate with each other.


Each of these observers will of course have his own separate reality  
VIEW and internal MODEL of that single reality, but these must  
necessarily be part of a single universe to make sense of things.



On another point you claim that computations are intractable. That  
may be true in some general human math sense but with complete  
certainty the computations that compute the current state of the  
universe are NOT intractable because they actually occur.


I don't understand. You seem to say that you assume only a non  
physical comp reality, and then you say that everything exists.


I just can't make sense of any statements you make. I don't see a  
theory. Sorry.


Bruno




Edgar



On Sunday, January 26, 2014 12:17:32 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

Dear Edgar,

  I have a different definition of reality: what which is  
incontrovertible for some collection of mutually communicating  
observers. I find other definition of the word to be incoherent.  
Given that, let me respond.



On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

Stephen,

I think we need to back up and explore the root of this apparent  
disagreement.


If I understand you you claim there are multiple computational  
realities while I claim there is only one. Is that correct?


  Using the definition above, yes, but I suspect that my take on  
this question is wildly at odds with yours. My claim is that if one  
tries to mash all of the content of the observations of all possible  
observers into a single computation one would get something that is  
indistinguishable from noise, hardly a computation in the usual sense.


   What is my reasoning? Consider a pair of observers, Alice and  
Bob, in orbit of the Earth, they communicate via a satellite system  
what has a very narrow channel. Each observes a different side of  
the Earth. The content of their observations is almost mutually  
exclusive.

div class=gmail_default style=font-f
...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor


Thanks for the explanation, Richard.
Bruno


On 26 Jan 2014, at 23:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 24 Jan 2014, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/24/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In your aristotelian theology. But when working on the mind-body  
problem, it is better to abandon all prejudices on this. Indeed  
with comp, it is the concrete laptop which appears as an  
(unconscious preprogrammed) idealization.


Of course I'd say reifying arithmetic is a prejudice.

No need in reifying it. You need just to believe in their truth.



For some people, like Hardy, the number 8 is more concrete that the  
planets you can count. Our brain makes us believe the contrary, but  
he uses a complex universal machine to fail us on this.


Yes I appreciate this viewpoint.  Actually I'm pretty agnostic  
about what's really real.  At any given time it's the ontology of  
our best theory; where best is not sharply defined but is  
measured by some mixture of predictive power, consilience,  scope,  
definiteness, and accuracy.


OK.


Comp is great on scope and maybe on definiteness, but it seems very  
weak on the other measures.


I am not sure. If comp is correct, and if there is no flaw in UDA,  
comp predicts the existence of physical laws. I don't know of any  
other theory doing that. And it is constructive, we get already the  
quantum logic, and they have to define the whole measure, by the UDA.


Bruno,

In string theory the physical laws and constants depend on how the  
hyper-EM flux winds thru the (500 or so) topo holes in the Calabi- 
Yau compact manifolds (ie., particles of 6d space).


OK. What is an hyper-EM? (Hyper means ?)

That is my way of referring to the electric flux that winds thru the  
6d-particles of space:


Flux - The fluxes in M Theory is similar to the electric fluxes but  
have nothing to do with electrons or photons. The presence of fluxes  
has the effect of holding the manifold's shape in place. The  
electric fluxes from an enclosed surface is equal to the number of  
charges within, similarly the fluxes in M Theory also comes with  
whole numbers of a certain unit (through each hole in the manifold).  
It drastically increases the complexity of the landscape. Especially  
when they act on the pointy end of the compactified manifold  
stretching it into a long, narrow neck. The result is to produce lot  
of valleys on the landscape with negative vacuum energy  
(cosmological constant), which is contrary to observation in the  
real world. Now the brane comes to the rescue.
Brane - Similar to the antiparticle in the point approximation,  
every brane also has its antibrane. Anitbrane has a tendency of  
attracting to the pointy end and add energy into the valley to make  
the vacuum energy positive. Thus, by a mix of a little of  
everything, a point on the landscape turns out to have a small  
positive cosmological constant - just like the observation in the  
real world. It is also found that D-brane can stabilize the size as  
well as the shape of the compactified manifold (like the steel-belt  
in radial tire) at least in the Type IIB theory. This function is  
crucial in the superstring theory, otherwise the 6 hidden dimensions  
would become unwinded and getting infinitely large. Then we would be  
living in ten dimensional space instead of the usual three

http://universe-review.ca/R15-26-CalabiYau02.htm#moduli

That may constitute a prediction of the laws and constants except  
that the relationship between the laws and particular windings in  
not known (but the same may be true of comp).


Interesting.
String theory is a physical theory which makes me envisage that  
number theory might be the measure winner. There are many formal  
similarities suggesting this, but I can't really judge, and only the  
theological approach (with G*) preserves the first person/thrid  
person relation in a way enlightnening for an explanation of the  
quanta/qualia relation.


Bruno



Richard

It is fuzzy on the precise frontier between geography and physics,  
but it explains at least the difference, which is not even existing  
in physics, except by a vague inference. Comp explains the maning  
of aw in physical laws.




That's why I keep hoping you'll be able to come up with some  
surprising testable prediction.


It is really a question of making people understanding the S4Grz, X  
and Z logics. The math is there. Just technical difficulties, to  
sum up. It is for the next generation.




This is just standard science.  It's not some Aristotelean  
prejudice. It's the same thing we ask of string theory and loop- 
quantum-gravity.


You mention that you think octonion Hilbert space will be found to  
be more fundamental than complex Hilbert space.  Of course many  
people have

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 26 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

You and Bruno have often complained that my postings lack rigor...
For a nice formal representation of Heraclitean streams click here
and read the bit about hypersets. BTW, this is a concept almost
identical to what Lou Kauffman uses in his notion of eigenforms.

It is the Dx = xx method. I don't see what is Heraclitean. On the
contrary, it is Parmenidian, and the Heraclitean aspect is recovered
by the p nuance. More on this later (we need more modal logic).

Bruno

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 23:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:15, David Nyman wrote:

On 25 January 2014 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Maybe the difference in intuition is because she doesn't think
about it in Hoyle's universalist way, although ISTM this is
implicit in the heuristic (i.e. the guy is the unique and non-
simultaneous owner of the experiences in all the pigeon holes).
Without the flashlight, I think what people do is think of
themselves as situated in some pigeon hole or other and then, as
it were, imaginatively select some continuation sequence of
pigeon holes from there.

Yes. But we can still believe in the universalist view, through
the amnesia and the return in the universal baby state, which then
can be related to the universal consciousness of the universal
person. In that sense we are right now the same person, but
relatively amnesic of all particularities which distinguish us.

Yes indeed, it is the amnesia that compartmentalises us. But it's
the right now that strikes me (and, I presume, struck Hoyle) as
something of an an equivocation, at least in the pigeon hole analogy.

I gues that's why some people want time, if not present-time, as a
primitive. I can understand the feeling, but I think that with comp
it is a sort of delusion.

Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by
showing what life would be like after a partial breakdown of how the
brain fools us into thinking we have continuous existence. It isn't
too much of a stretch from imagining living in 5 minute segments to
realising that we could equally well live in instants, with all of
our memory being what's there right now, what's available to us in
that instant, that pgeonhole. After all, logically, given the
assumption of locality in physics, that's all we'd expect to be
available.
'Because, like all of us in our daily lives, you're stuck with a
grotesque and absurd illusion.'

'How's that?'

'The idea of time as an ever-rolling stream. The thing which is
supposed to bear all its sons away. There's one thing quite certain
in this business: the idea of time as a steady progression from past
to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it
subjectively. But we're the victims of a confidence trick...

Fred Hoyle, October the First is Too Late

HA! Hoyle here undermines the idea that we can obtain time merely
from the well ordering of integers! I focus on the action, ever-
rolling stream, the progression; the ordering of events are the
mere products of the stream, not the origin of the streaming.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 Jan 2014, at 01:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Like I have written previously, I am past the point of buying the
idea that there is a Reality out there independent of us that we
passively come to experience. I am tired of explanations that ask us
to believe that change is an illusion that somehow persists.

Is that not contradictory? You are asking us to believe in a time
independent to us, and to not believe in a reality independent to us.

Bruno

Can we try a different set of concepts?

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 12:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear LizR,
:
the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is
wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But
we're the victims of a confidence trick...

What other implication does Hoyle's phrasing have? His entire
discussion of the pigeon holes is to point out that there is no a
priori order of the holes, it is a subjective delusion that we
obtain because of our inability to see the whole lot.

His implication seems to me to be that the subjective experience of
time can be explained as a phenomenon caused by the order of the
pigeon holes, together with certain rules linking them together. The
rules are basically equivalent to thermodynamics (unsurprisingly, we
wouldn't get consciousness in a universe without an entropy
gradient). As one of his characters explains...

John went on, 'All right, let's come now to the contents of the
pigeon holes. Suppose you choose one of them, say the 137th. You
find in it a story, as you might find one of those little slips of
paper in a Christmas cracker. But you also find statments about the
stories you'll find in other pigeon holes. You decide to check up on
whether these statements about the stories in the other pigeon holes
are right or not. To your surprise you find the statments made about
earlier pigeon holes, the 136th, the 135th, and so on, are
substantially correct. But when you compare with the pigeon holes on
the other side, the 138th, the 139th,...you find things aren't so
good. You find a lot of contradictions and discrepancies. This turns
out to be the same wherever you happen to look, in every pigeon
hole. The statements made about pigeon holes on the other side are
at best diffuse and at the worst just plain wrong. Now let's
translate this parable into the time problem. We'll call the
particular pigeon hole, the one you happen to be examining, the
present. The earlier pigeon holes, the ones for which you find
substantially correct statements, we call the past. The later pigeon
holes, the ones for which there isn't too much in the way of correct
statments, we'll call the future. Let me go on a bit further. What I
want to suggest is that the actual world is very much like this.
Instead of pigeon holes we talk about states.'

Note that the description he gives of the 137th hole applies to all
the holes - so the present is whichever hole you happen to look in.
From the subjective, inside view, all moments are the present when
they're being experienced, and we only experience a flow of time
because of their contents (a fact which Memento guy illustrates
nicely, of course).

This is a description of a capsule theory of identity. Hoyle
introduces a flashlight, but then shows that the order in which the
flashlight is used is irrelevant - the 1st person view from inside
the pigeon-holes is of continuous subjective experience. In fact,
the existence or nonexistence of the flashlight is irrelevant to the
subjective experience. The flashlight was introduced so the
characters could think about sampling each pigeon hole, as though
they could somehow stand outside time - take the bird's eye view.
But of course in reality they can only take the internal, frog's
eye view.

Hence, imho, Hoyle is saying that it is the order of the boxes and
the laws relating their contents that gives rise to the subjective
experience of time.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed  
to be responsible for my or our existence.


Sounds like physics to me.


Yes. if you believe theologically that physics is the ultimate  
explanation of our existence.


If physics is your theology, then the UDA shows that it is a non- 
mechanist theology. You can't say yes to the doctor, as you can't  
survive the substitution qua computatio. You need some magic  
properties of the physical object to do that. If not, you cannot  
distinguish the 1p in a physical reality and the 1p in the  
arithmetical reality.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:55, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 8:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 13:39, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear LizR,

By that standard we would still be living in caves

Teehee. Have you been reading Camille Paglia...

No... good to know. I will try not to use that phrase...

Personally I think this should be a touchstone for all people with
unconventional ideas. Once you can explain them so I understand
them, you're definitely onto something!

pffft, I have only pitiful excuses. It takes a lot of time and
concentration to write this stuff... I have less and less to
dedicate for this List. :_(

Sorry, knowledge does not come cheaply. :_( It has taken me
countless hours of reading to get to where I am.. What is one to do,
when trying to explain an idea that is unconventional? I can't seem
to just shut up...

Look to Bruno as an example, perhaps? He's trying to educate me in
modal and predicate logic (I think) so I can better get to grips
with comp.

I like his pedagogy. I have learned a lot from him as well. It is
wonderful to be able to sit at the feet of Masters.

I just wish I could figure out how to get him (and you!) to
acknowledge that there is a distinction that makes a difference
between a thing and its representation. There are rules and
principles of distinctions that make a difference... I am still
learning of those.

Good, because you do confuse often the numbers and their
representions. That happens when you argue that 17 is prime is not a
truth independent of us. You coinfuse the fact that 17 is prime with
the knowledge of that fact, which needs human beliefs and
representations.

Bruno

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:25, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form are the place to start...

I am not sure. I can appreciate what he did, and what Kauffman did
from it, but my experience is that to begin with Spencer Brown makes
the study of logic more confusing. It is hard stuff disguised in false
simplicity. That's my feeling. Beginners must grasp standard logic
first, I think.

Bruno

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:22 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 14:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
I just wish I could figure out how to get him (and you!) to
acknowledge that there is a distinction that makes a difference
between a thing and its representation. There are rules and
principles of distinctions that make a difference... I am still
learning of those.

I am very amenable to acknowledging that distinction. I am not my
photograph, or my name, or my image in a mirror. The universe is not
the contents of the equations of string theory ... unless it turns
out that it is, of course, but if that is the case, then it's an
exception. Which is probably why some people think Max Tegmark is a
bit of a crackpot.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:


On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed  
to be responsible for my or our existence.

Sounds like physics to me.

If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their  
time trying to find a TOE.


The physical TOE would be a very natural candidate for the general  
TOE, if it was not dissolving consciousness and person when tackling  
the mind body problem.


The fact that the most coherent and rational materialist tend to  
eliminate consciousness  is coherent with the UDA conclusion. We  
cannot have both a primitive materials universe, and a mechanist  
expanation of the mind.
Consciousness is the grain of dust in the picture of reality, which  
will force us to come back to seriousness in the fundamental  
questioning about the mind.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-01-27 LizR lizj...@gmail.com

 On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
 very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
 or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.


 Dark matter was discovered in 1932; and Einstein did at least predict one
 form of dark energy. One thing of major significance that hasn't been
 discovered was the Big Bang,


That's not true, it was discovered by Georges Lemaître in 1931... but the
name came from Hoyle later...

Quentin


 which wouldn't be discovered (and named by Fred Hoyle) until around the
 early 60s.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 04:00, LizR wrote:


On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally responsible  
for existence - hence primitivematerialism makes matter  
(energy etc) play the part of God, in that sense. I can see that -  
an explanation that stops at matter and says that's it! is indeed  
making it a God, in the same way a religious person does when they  
say God did it, end of story!


fwiw I agree with Bruno on this, his broader sense of God makes  
sense and is more worthy of our attention than the Sky Father  
sitting on a cloud (which isn't even the concept of God in all  
religions).

Except then it's not a proper noun and should be written god.

Incredibly picky, but annoyingly true.


As we don't know, in the comp theory, if God is a person or not. It is  
more polite to use a proper name. And to use the substantive god for  
the name (God) is a way to be as neutral as possible.
Then, as I said, using another name would be like taking his name  
seriously, which *is* the main error. God, like the Tao, has no name.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:31, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed  
to be responsible for my or our existence.

Sounds like physics to me.

If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their  
time trying to find a TOE.


Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend.  Bruno's  
fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is  
fundamental but don't define it.  Of course they might say, It's  
whatever we find to be fundamental...and we're calling it doG.


We cannot find something to be fundamental. We can bet, pray, hope,  
fear, but not find. It would not be (serious) theology.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, so your notion of God is whatever is fundamentally  
responsible for existence - hence primitive materialism makes  
matter (energy etc) play the part of God, in that sense. I can see  
that - an explanation that stops at matter and says that's it!  
is indeed making it a God, in the same way a religious person does  
when they say God did it, end of story!


fwiw I agree with Bruno on this, his broader sense of God makes  
sense and is more worthy of our attention than the Sky Father  
sitting on a cloud (which isn't even the concept of God in all  
religions).

Except then it's not a proper noun and should be written god.

Incredibly picky, but annoyingly true.


It's picky, but notice how much difference it would make,  
psychologically, if it were followed by Bruno and the theologians he  
quotes.  And Bruno even says god is unnameable, so it can't be a  
name.  So I think John Clark has a good point - Bruno really *wants*  
to connect with the idea of the creator man in the sky.


The contrary. I want people to handle the religious question with the  
scientific method/attitude. If not it is pseudo-science and pseudo- 
religion.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor



On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:49, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Dear LizR,
   George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form are the place to start...

I'll add that to my reading list.


But on which end?  :-)


If you add all Stephen's links in the list, you risk a memory overflow.

Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room



On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:


On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com  
wrote:


 But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or  
understand, or

 whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room
 COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT  
POSSIBLY

 be conscious?


 NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE
 CONSCIOUS.*

 *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience.  
Puppets
 can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM  
to be

 conscious.

Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever  
sense you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious?  
Or do you think that is impossible?


Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different  
from a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be  
conscious, just as pictures of people drinking pictures of water do  
no experience relief from thirst.


To compare a brain with a machine can make sense.
To compare a brain with a picture cannot.

Bruno






 Or do you claim that the question is meaningless, a
 category error (which ironically is a term beloved of  
positivists)? If

 the latter, how is it that the question can be meaningfully asked
 about humans but not the Chinese Room?


 Because humans are not human bodies. We don't have to doubt that  
humans are

 conscious, as to do so would be to admit that we humans are the ones
 choosing to do the doubting and therefore are a priori certainly  
conscious.
 Bodies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, since they remain  
when we
 are personally unconscious or dear. That does not mean, however,  
that our
 body is not itself composed on lower and lower levels by  
microphenomenal

 experiences which only seem to us at the macro level to be forms and
 functionsthey are forms and functions relative to our
 perceptual-relativistic distance from their level of description.  
Since
 there is no distance between our experience and ourselves, we  
experience
 ourselves in every way that it can be experienced without being  
outside of
 itself, and are therefore not limited to mathematical  
descriptions. The sole
 purpose of mathematical descriptions are to generalize  
measurements - to

 make phenomena distant and quantified.

Wouldn't the Chinese Room also say the same things, i.e. We Chinese  
Rooms don't have to doubt that we are

conscious, as to do so would be to admit that we are the ones
choosing to do the doubting and therefore are a priori certainly  
conscious.


Why would the things a doll says things make any difference? If a  
puppet moves its mouth and you hear words that seem to be coming out  
of it, does that mean that the words are true, and that they are the  
true words of a puppet?



  I like my examples better than the Chinese Room, because they are
  simpler:
 
  1. I can type a password based on the keystrokes instead of the  
letters

  on
  the keys. This way no part of the system needs to know the  
letters,
  indeed, they could be removed altogether, thereby showing that  
data
  processing does not require all of the qualia that can be  
associated

  with
  it, and therefore it follows that data processing does not  
necessarily

  produce any or all qualia.
 
  2. The functional aspects of playing cards are unrelated to the  
suits,

  their
  colors, the pictures of the royal cards, and the participation  
of the

  players. No digital simulation of playing card games requires any
  aesthetic
  qualities to simulate any card game.
 
  3. The difference between a game like chess and a sport like  
basketball

  is
  that in chess, the game has only to do with the difficulty for  
the human

  intellect to compute all of the possibilities and prioritize them
  logically.
  Sports have strategy as well, but they differ fundamentally in  
that the

  real
  challenge of the game is the physical execution of the moves. A  
machine

  has
  no feeling so it can never participate meaningfully in a sport.  
It

  doesn't
  get tired or feel pain, it need not attempt to accomplish  
something that

  it
  cannot accomplish, etc. If chess were a sport, completing each  
move

  would be
  subject to the possibility of failure and surprise, and the end  
can

  never
  result in checkmate, since there is always the chance of weaker  
pieces
  getting lucky and overpowering the strong. There is no  
Cinderella Story

  in
  real chess, the winning strategy always wins because there can  
be no

  difference between theory and reality in an information-theoretic
  universe.

 How can you start a sentence a machine has no feeling so... and
 purport to discuss the question of whether a machine can have  
feeling?


  So no, I do not believe this, I understand it. I do not think  
that the
  Chinese Room is

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:

 On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
 God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be
 responsible for my or our existence.

 Sounds like physics to me.


 If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time
 trying to find a TOE.


 The physical TOE would be a very natural candidate for the general TOE, if
 it was not dissolving consciousness and person when tackling the mind body
 problem.

 The fact that the most coherent and rational materialist tend to eliminate
 consciousness  is coherent with the UDA conclusion. We cannot have both a
 primitive materials universe, and a mechanist expanation of the mind.



I have suggested based on string theory that we can have a primitive
materialistic universe derived from the effectively complete computations
of a metaverse machine and at the same time a mind and consciousness
derived from an incomplete universe machine. That is, mind/body comes from
two different comp machines, one infinite and the other finite. Richard


 Consciousness is the grain of dust in the picture of reality, which will
 force us to come back to seriousness in the fundamental questioning about
 the mind.

 Bruno




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: what is the definition of computation?

2014-01-27 Thread Alberto G. Corona

2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of that
 kind from computationalism.

 Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most common
 one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the field, but this
 has nothing to do with comp.

 Then I allude sometimes about salvia divinorum, for which your remark
 makes much more sense (but still not as a consequence of comp). It is
 normal that altering consciousness products or methods can provide
 information on consciousness.


So inplicitly you  are agreeing with what I told. You would never accept it
however.

 But don´t worry.  That is not bad. It is simply human. To use the desired
conclussion as an starting axiom is natural. I do not talk about your
professional work or your conscious thinking, in which you are correct, but
about the influence of you hipothesis  in the spontaneous thinking about
what is true in apparently unrelated questions where the conscious does not
fire the caution, it is only an hipothesis! warning.

Most of the thinking is unconscious. That´s why we wake-up with a solution
for a problem after sleeping. That is an example of how  the individual
good (desired outcomes at least) establish what is true.





 (It is not a rethorical question. it is not an accusation. I just ask)


 Marijuana makes things cool and a bit psychedelic.
 To dissociate completely and visit other realities Salvia is more
 efficacious. Also the experience last between 4 and 8 minutes, when
 cannabis or wine inebriate you for about two to four hours.

 But the results are more easily sharable when doing math and logic.

 Normally.

 Bruno




 2014/1/24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

  2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net:

 Dear Alberto,

 I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.

 On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:


 Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
 something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital
 computer.
 So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition.
 because
 it embrace everything.


 Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
 simulations,
 representations and all other information related aspects of the
 universe.
 It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the
 physical
 world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation
 can be a
 morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
 thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate
 yet
 related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members
 of the
 Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then, are
 Identical.



 Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using lego
 pieces? No, my dear legologist.

 What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces
 entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation is
 whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and
 thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is
 used
 ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to
 increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it.


 Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to
 their
 input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of
 transformation


 Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that
 produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile.


 A cruise missile is not a computation.
 Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation,
 nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on all
 computations).

 I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no
 controversial notions. the notion of computation is  based on the
 mathematical discovery of the universal systems, languages and
 (mathematical and digital) machines. Computation theory and
 computability theory are standard branches of computer science.

 Well, to be sure, the notion of computation is more complex than the
 notion of computability, but it is easy to get in all case precise
 definitions which are coherent with what we know about universal
 systems.

 Bruno


 But... as long as the are though or they are build or they are used,
 the goal is to create some kind of order by the mind that defines,
 uses or build it.

 These computations at last produce certain desired order. Either are
 made for you to convince me about how meaningles is my definition or
 to kill terrorists in an enemy country etc. Ultimately the desired
 outcome is reduction of uncertainty and entropy around the designer.

 . It is a metaphisical position if you like. If you like, I can call
 essence of computation instead of computation as such. or
 alternatively

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

2014-01-27 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,

I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see them as
merely representational, Parmenidean, you see them as more. The Heraclitean
aspect is far more than p for me.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 26 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

You and Bruno have often complained that my postings lack rigor... For a
nice formal representation of Heraclitean streams click
herehttp://books.google.com/books?id=vurIJEFut8QCpg=PA55lpg=PA55dq=jon+barwise+streams+hypersetssource=blots=eYJKhMJR1-sig=GD2rTwSNtcLpqnm2K3eqE24THNohl=ensa=Xei=Y4rlUu2tCIW-sQSf74HYBwved=0CGMQ6AEwBw#v=onepageq=jon%20barwise%20streams%20hypersetsf=false
and
read the bit about hypersets. BTW, this is a concept almost identical to
what Lou Kauffman uses in his notion of eigenforms.

It is the Dx = xx method. I don't see what is Heraclitean. On the
contrary, it is Parmenidian, and the Heraclitean aspect is recovered by the
p nuance. More on this later (we need more modal logic).

Bruno

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 26 January 2014 23:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:15, David Nyman wrote:

On 25 January 2014 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Maybe the difference in intuition is because she doesn't think about
it in Hoyle's universalist way, although ISTM this is implicit in the
heuristic (i.e. the guy is the unique and non-simultaneous owner of
the
experiences in all the pigeon holes). Without the flashlight, I think what
people do is think of themselves as situated in some pigeon hole or other
and then, as it were, imaginatively select some continuation sequence of
pigeon holes from there.

Yes. But we can still believe in the universalist view, through the
amnesia and the return in the universal baby state, which then can be
related to the universal consciousness of the universal person. In that
sense we are right now the same person, but relatively amnesic of all
particularities which distinguish us.

Yes indeed, it is the amnesia that compartmentalises us. But it's the
right now that strikes me (and, I presume, struck Hoyle) as something of
an an equivocation, at least in the pigeon hole analogy.

I gues that's why some people want time, if not present-time, as a
primitive. I can understand the feeling, but I think that with comp it is a
sort of delusion.

Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by
showing what life would be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain
fools us into thinking we have continuous existence. It isn't too much of a
stretch from imagining living in 5 minute segments to realising that we
could equally well live in instants, with all of our memory being what's
there right now, what's available to us in that instant, that pgeonhole.
After all, logically, given the assumption of locality in physics, that's
all we'd *expect* to be available.

'Because, like all of us in our daily lives, you're stuck with a
grotesque and absurd illusion.'

'How's that?'

'The idea of time as an ever-rolling stream. The thing which is supposed
to bear all its sons away. There's one thing quite certain in this
business: the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is
wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're
the victims of a confidence trick...

Fred Hoyle, October the First is Too Late

HA! Hoyle here undermines the idea that we can obtain time merely from
the well ordering of integers! I focus on the action, ever-rolling stream,
the progression; the ordering of events are the mere products of the
stream, not the origin of the streaming.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

2014-01-27 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,

   No, time is observer dependent as well as observers supply the measures.
Recall that I see time as a local measure of change. Change itself is not
observer dependent, it flows eternally as the potential to Be of Becoming.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 01:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:


   Like I have written previously, I am past the point of buying the idea
 that there is a Reality out there independent of us that we passively come
 to experience. I am tired of explanations that ask us to believe that
 change is an illusion that somehow persists.



 Is that not contradictory? You are asking us to believe in a time
 independent to us, and to not believe in a reality independent to us.


 Bruno






   Can we try a different set of concepts?


 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 27 January 2014 12:48, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Dear LizR,
  :
 the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong.
 I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're the
 victims of a confidence trick...

   What other implication does Hoyle's phrasing have? His entire
 discussion of the pigeon holes is to point out that there is no a priori
 order of the holes, it is a subjective delusion that we obtain because of
 our inability to see the whole lot.


 His implication seems to me to be that the subjective experience of time
 can be explained as a phenomenon caused by the order of the pigeon holes,
 together with certain rules linking them together. The rules are basically
 equivalent to thermodynamics (unsurprisingly, we wouldn't get consciousness
 in a universe without an entropy gradient). As one of his characters
 explains...

 John went on, 'All right, let's come now to the contents of the pigeon
 holes. Suppose you choose one of them, say the 137th. You find in it a
 story, as you might find one of those little slips of paper in a Christmas
 cracker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_cracker. But you also
 find statments about the stories you'll find in other pigeon holes. You
 decide to check up on whether these statements about the stories in the
 other pigeon holes are right or not. To your surprise you find the
 statments made about earlier pigeon holes, the 136th, the 135th, and so on,
 are substantially correct. But when you compare with the pigeon holes on
 the other side, the 138th, the 139th,...you find things aren't so good. You
 find a lot of contradictions and discrepancies. This turns out to be the
 same wherever you happen to look, in every pigeon hole. The statements made
 about pigeon holes on the other side are at best diffuse and at the worst
 just plain wrong. Now let's translate this parable into the time problem.
 We'll call the particular pigeon hole, the one you happen to be examining,
 the present. The earlier pigeon holes, the ones for which you find
 substantially correct statements, we call the past. The later pigeon holes,
 the ones for which there isn't too much in the way of correct statments,
 we'll call the future. Let me go on a bit further. What I want to suggest
 is that the actual world is very much like this. Instead of pigeon holes we
 talk about states.'

 Note that the description he gives of the 137th hole applies to *all*the 
 holes - so the present is whichever hole you happen to look in. From
 the subjective, inside view, all moments are the present when they're
 being experienced, and we only experience a flow of time because of their
 contents (a fact which Memento guy illustrates nicely, of course).

 This is a description of a capsule theory of identity. Hoyle introduces a
 flashlight, but then shows that the order in which the flashlight is used
 is irrelevant - the 1st person view from inside the pigeon-holes is of
 continuous subjective experience. In fact, the existence or nonexistence of
 the flashlight is irrelevant to the subjective experience. The flashlight
 was introduced so the characters could think about sampling each pigeon
 hole, as though they could somehow stand outside time - take the bird's
 eye view. But of course in reality they can only take the internal,
 frog's eye view.

 Hence, imho, Hoyle is saying that it is the order of the boxes and the
 laws relating their contents that gives rise to the subjective experience
 of time.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:


On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed  
to be responsible for my or our existence.

Sounds like physics to me.

If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their  
time trying to find a TOE.


The physical TOE would be a very natural candidate for the general  
TOE, if it was not dissolving consciousness and person when tackling  
the mind body problem.


The fact that the most coherent and rational materialist tend to  
eliminate consciousness  is coherent with the UDA conclusion. We  
cannot have both a primitive materials universe, and a mechanist  
expanation of the mind.



I have suggested based on string theory that we can have a primitive  
materialistic universe derived from


If it is primitive, it cannot be derived from.
i use primitive in the sense of having to be assumed in the  
theory, or not derivable (yet, accepted).





the effectively complete computations of a metaverse machine and at  
the same time a mind and consciousness derived from an incomplete  
universe machine. That is, mind/body comes from two different comp  
machines, one infinite and the other finite. Richard


It is a bit fuzzy, but that sounds reasonable. Yet, string theory  
comes from experimentation (if only because it is build on QM) which  
is, in comp, a bit of a sort of treachery. This prevents the use of  
the G/G* separation to be exploited for consciousness and qualia.


Bruno





Consciousness is the grain of dust in the picture of reality, which  
will force us to come back to seriousness in the fundamental  
questioning about the mind.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:21, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see
them as merely representational, Parmenidean, you see them as more.

But numbers can be used to represent things, like an address, but they
are not themselves representational.

The Heraclitean aspect is far more than p for me.

What more, and how do you prove that?

Bruno

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 26 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR,

You and Bruno have often complained that my postings lack
rigor... For a nice formal representation of Heraclitean streams
click here and read the bit about hypersets. BTW, this is a concept
almost identical to what Lou Kauffman uses in his notion of
eigenforms.

It is the Dx = xx method. I don't see what is Heraclitean. On the
contrary, it is Parmenidian, and the Heraclitean aspect is recovered
by the p nuance. More on this later (we need more modal logic).

Bruno

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear LizR,

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 23:03, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 14:15, David Nyman wrote:

Yes indeed, it is the amnesia that compartmentalises us. But
it's the right now that strikes me (and, I presume, struck
Hoyle) as something of an an equivocation, at least in the pigeon
hole analogy.

I gues that's why some people want time, if not present-time, as a
primitive. I can understand the feeling, but I think that with comp
it is a sort of delusion.

Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by
showing what life would be like after a partial breakdown of how
the brain fools us into thinking we have continuous existence. It
isn't too much of a stretch from imagining living in 5 minute
segments to realising that we could equally well live in instants,
with all of our memory being what's there right now, what's
available to us in that instant, that pgeonhole. After all,
logically, given the assumption of locality in physics, that's all
we'd expect to be available.
'Because, like all of us in our daily lives, you're stuck with a
grotesque and absurd illusion.'

'How's that?'

'The idea of time as an ever-rolling stream. The thing which is
supposed to bear all its sons away. There's one thing quite certain
in this business: the idea of time as a steady progression from
past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it
subjectively. But we're the victims of a confidence trick...

Fred Hoyle, October the First is Too Late

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor



On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:24, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear Bruno,

   No, time is observer dependent as well as observers supply the  
measures.


Sorry, I don't understand.




Recall that I see time as a local measure of change.



As long as you don't give me what you assume and what you derive, this  
kind of talk is too much precise to be clear.


Then, if you assume time or becoming, your theory is incompatible with  
computationalism.




Change itself is not observer dependent, it flows eternally as the  
potential to Be of Becoming.


This does not help.

Bruno








On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 27 Jan 2014, at 01:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:



  Like I have written previously, I am past the point of buying the  
idea that there is a Reality out there independent of us that we  
passively come to experience. I am tired of explanations that ask  
us to believe that change is an illusion that somehow persists.



Is that not contradictory? You are asking us to believe in a time  
independent to us, and to not believe in a reality independent to us.



Bruno







  Can we try a different set of concepts?


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 12:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Dear LizR,
 :
the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is  
wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But  
we're the victims of a confidence trick...


  What other implication does Hoyle's phrasing have? His entire  
discussion of the pigeon holes is to point out that there is no a  
priori order of the holes, it is a subjective delusion that we  
obtain because of our inability to see the whole lot.


His implication seems to me to be that the subjective experience of  
time can be explained as a phenomenon caused by the order of the  
pigeon holes, together with certain rules linking them together.  
The rules are basically equivalent to thermodynamics  
(unsurprisingly, we wouldn't get consciousness in a universe  
without an entropy gradient). As one of his characters explains...


John went on, 'All right, let's come now to the contents of the  
pigeon holes. Suppose you choose one of them, say the 137th. You  
find in it a story, as you might find one of those little slips of  
paper in a Christmas cracker. But you also find statments about the  
stories you'll find in other pigeon holes. You decide to check up  
on whether these statements about the stories in the other pigeon  
holes are right or not. To your surprise you find the statments  
made about earlier pigeon holes, the 136th, the 135th, and so on,  
are substantially correct. But when you compare with the pigeon  
holes on the other side, the 138th, the 139th,...you find things  
aren't so good. You find a lot of contradictions and discrepancies.  
This turns out to be the same wherever you happen to look, in every  
pigeon hole. The statements made about pigeon holes on the other  
side are at best diffuse and at the worst just plain wrong. Now  
let's translate this parable into the time problem. We'll call the  
particular pigeon hole, the one you happen to be examining, the  
present. The earlier pigeon holes, the ones for which you find  
substantially correct statements, we call the past. The later  
pigeon holes, the ones for which there isn't too much in the way of  
correct statments, we'll call the future. Let me go on a bit  
further. What I want to suggest is that the actual world is very  
much like this. Instead of pigeon holes we talk about states.'


Note that the description he gives of the 137th hole applies to all  
the holes - so the present is whichever hole you happen to look in.  
From the subjective, inside view, all moments are the present  
when they're being experienced, and we only experience a flow of  
time because of their contents (a fact which Memento guy  
illustrates nicely, of course).


This is a description of a capsule theory of identity. Hoyle  
introduces a flashlight, but then shows that the order in which the  
flashlight is used is irrelevant - the 1st person view from inside  
the pigeon-holes is of continuous subjective experience. In fact,  
the existence or nonexistence of the flashlight is irrelevant to  
the subjective experience. The flashlight was introduced so the  
characters could think about sampling each pigeon hole, as though  
they could somehow stand outside time - take the bird's eye view.  
But of course in reality they can only take the internal, frog's  
eye view.


Hence, imho, Hoyle is saying that it is the order of the boxes and  
the laws relating their contents that gives rise to the subjective  
experience of time.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Brent and Liz,

It seems to me that the whole notion of the elephant being in two places at
the SAME TIME presupposes a common present moment. Surely Liz and SA didn't
mean that? That would be agreeing with Edgar's present moment of p-time!

Remember that this elephant is in different moments of clock time in two
different frames. So how, unless there is a common present moment, can it
be SIMULTANEOUSLY anywhere?

That'a basically just saying that any object that is at two different clock
times in two different frames has some actual existence at the same present
moment in which it is at both of those different clock times.

Seems to me this is an implicit argument that ALL of relativistic clock
time variation actually takes place in a common present moment and that
it's not really different relativistic views but an actual quantum
splitting of that object into various probability states, one in each view.

It seems to be an argument that relativity non-simultaneity produces
Schroedinger's cats everywhere it occurs, and all those cats exist in a
common present moment.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read the SA article

Edgar

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:30:57 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/26/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:

It's common knowledge - well, amongst people who are interested in this
sort of thing - that an outside observer sees an infalling object get stuck
just outside the event horizon of a black hole (and then fade away as it
redshifts towards infinity)

This was explained in a (relatively) recent scientific american
article using an elephant as the example. The point is that the BH creates
a superposition - the elephant is a schrodinger's cat which is in both
states (alive outside the BH, and dead inside). I found it fascinating that
this well known quantum thought experiment could be done for real (in
theory).

That's a very controversial theory though, since in the cat's (or
elephant's) frame there is notable about the horizon (per GR). Ahmed
Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, James Sully

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123

and also Leonard Susskind have been proposing that there must be a
firewall at the horizon to prevent this kind of entanglement, because
otherwise it would violate quantum monogamy.

http://quantumfrontiers.com/2012/12/03/is-alice-burning-the-black-hole-firewall-controversy/

Hawking just delivered a somewhat cryptic paper saying there is no well
defined horizon.

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

I'm afraid SciAm has fallen into the trap of trying to compete with
Discovery and the tabloids.

Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:

 On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
  God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to
 be responsible for my or our existence.

 Sounds like physics to me.


 If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time
 trying to find a TOE.


 The physical TOE would be a very natural candidate for the general TOE,
 if it was not dissolving consciousness and person when tackling the mind
 body problem.

 The fact that the most coherent and rational materialist tend to
 eliminate consciousness  is coherent with the UDA conclusion. We cannot
 have both a primitive materials universe, and a mechanist expanation of the
 mind.



 I have suggested based on string theory that we can have a primitive
 materialistic universe derived from


 If it is primitive, it cannot be derived from.
 i use primitive in the sense of having to be assumed in the theory, or
 not derivable (yet, accepted).




 the effectively complete computations of a metaverse machine and at the
 same time a mind and consciousness derived from an incomplete universe
 machine. That is, mind/body comes from two different comp machines, one
 infinite and the other finite. Richard


 It is a bit fuzzy, but that sounds reasonable. Yet, string theory comes
 from experimentation (if only because it is build on QM) which is, in comp,
 a bit of a sort of treachery.


God is indeed treacherous, consisting of the programmer, the metaverse
comp(uter) machine and each universe comp machine
in my string cosmology. The metaverse spacetime overlaps each universe
spacetime; and each are at least mental multiverses if not physical
multiverses. However, physical particles are computed early on by the
effectively complete metaverse machine. Consciousness stems from physical
complexity exceeding the Lloyd bit limit (10^120) of our universe, which
allows an unfettered connection to the metaverse, a sort of Platonia.
[Perhaps]
Richard



 This prevents the use of the G/G* separation to be exploited for
 consciousness and qualia.

 Bruno





 Consciousness is the grain of dust in the picture of reality, which will
 force us to come back to seriousness in the fundamental questioning about
 the mind.

 Bruno




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:12, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of
rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers.

A Lôbian machine like ZF can do that already.

I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of
Godel's incompleteness theorems was proved by a computer.

Boyer and Moore, yes, but that is not conceptuallydifferent than ZF,
except that the Boyer-Moore machine uses more efficient sort of AI path.

Gödel discovered that PM already proves his own incompleteness
theorem. All Lôbian machine proves their own Gödel's theorem. They all
prove If I am consistent, then I can't prove my consistency.

The question I raised initially was this: will there ever be a
machine or human who can correctly answer all questions with a
mathematical theme that have answers?

All? No, for any machine i in the phi_i.
But that is less clear for evolving machines, whose evolution rule is
not part of the program of the machine. Of course, at each moment of
her life, she will be incomplete, but if her evolution is enough
non computable, or using some special oracle, it might be that the
machine will generate the infinitely many truth of arithmetic, but not
in any provable way.

I didn't think so in my original post but now I'm starting to
wonder. It's the existence of undecidable statements that would
probably lead to the machine or human not being able to do it in
general. This reminds me of the halting problem.

Those are related. Undecidable is always relative. Consistent(PA) is
not provable by PA, but is provable in two lines in the theory PA
+con(PA). Of course PA+con(PA) cannot prove con(PA+con(PA)).

What about PA+con(I), with I = PA+con(I). It exists as we can
eliminate the occurence of I by using the Dx = xx method. Well, in
this case PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency, but only because it
is actually inconsistent.

The good news is we will never run out of mathematical territory to
think about.

Yes indeed, even if we confine ourselves on elementary (first order)
arithmetic. There is an infinity of surprises there.

Bruno

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Gabriel Bodeen
gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and
so are a smaller set than the reals. I'd suppose that if people can
figure that out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed
computer brain could, too.

-Gabe

On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tenneson wrote:
There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are
true statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about
arithmetic the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just
impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or
other forms of rational processing. We'll never have a computer,
then, that will work as a mathematically-omniscient device. By that
I mean a computer such that every question that has a mathematically-
oriented theme having an answer truthfully can be answered by such a
device. Calculators demonstrate the concept but are clearly not
mathematically-omniscient: you ask the calculator what is 2+2 and
press a button and presto you get an answer. What I'm talking
about would be questions like is the set of rational numbers equal
in size to the set of real numbers, and get the correct answer. So
we will never have such a computer no matter what its capacities
are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain.
Unfortunately, that means that even for humans, we will never know
everything about math. Unless something weird would happen and we
suddenly had infinite capacities; that might change the conclusions.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: A theory of dark matter...

``
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:28:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT 
 to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark 
 matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see that your mention 
 of a gravity gradient I have to get past is relevant...

 Edgar

  
 Edgar how do you envisage there would be no large scale resolution of the 
 combined gravity of the galaxy? I'd doubt that is what is being said, 
 because there's no way for that to make any sense. The planets have their 
 gravity, around suns with their gravity, out to the whole galaxy including 
 all the dust and gas, get far enough back and that's approximately a mass, 
 with a gravity. 
  
 The dark matter component accounts extra gravity the radial velocities of 
 the galaxy say to be there.
  
 As an aside I was going to mention (since you expressed curiosity in your 
 original post) that ages ago over on FoAR, I didn't speculate the same 
 thing but sort of related, in that I wondered whether gravity might behave 
 slightly differently as it compounded for increasing scales and density. 
 I'm thinking the more gravity stacks up vertically, the more rapidly, the 
 slower it falls away relative to the thin end where its furtherest extent 
 current is. 
  
 Not in that the big vertical stack falls away more slowly. That's the part 
 that stays exactly inverse with r^2. 
  
 But that where the thicker slice is adjacent to the thinner slice 
 (imagining two cross sections jingling against each other) the slightly 
 thicker slice is very slightly pulled back toward the even thicker slice 
 right behind and so on. The overall proportionality is then preserved by 
 transferring a tiny bit of the thinner adjacent back to the thicker behind 
 it. Which it in turn rebalances by pulling a little slice from the one 
 ahead. 
  
 Another way to do this would be to keep all slices constant in the summed 
 gravitational energy, by making slices near the massive object 
 itself infinitesimal thickness, and each slice subsequent however much 
 thicker it needs to be, to be the same summed gravitational energy. So the 
 thickness of the slices get ever longer the ever smaller the gravity 
 becomes. 
  
 It would only require a very tiny imbalance back in the direction of 
 increasing gravity, for the effect to be well into resolving toward the 
 edge of the galaxy as decreasing as expecting, and then suddenly WHAM, off 
 a cliff, almost vertically straight down to nothing (because  the tail 
 accelerated its thinning away to effectively nothing at an ever more 
 resolved juncture) 
  
  
 What sort of effect would that be in spacetime fabric? What would the 
 acceleration be like when objects approach the galaxy and suddenly fall off 
 a gravity cliff accerating wildly toward the centre, but also in the 
 tangential direction as well. 
  
 Anyway, the reason I thought it might make sense, is firstly the effect 
 would literally not exist in any gravity that we could accurately measure. 
 It'd pretty much be as expected right out to the cliff, because the tiny 
 imbalance was paid for entirely by the tail end. 
  
 Secondly, it wouldn't be just one cliff. There would be some 
 direct correspondence with the rate at which the galaxy becomes more 
 dense, varies then tails off end to end. 
  
 Galaxies aren't necessarily symmetrical in a straight line from one end to 
 the other through the middle. What's interesting about that, is that the 
 same effect would exist in both directions, but the 'pattern' would be 
 a mirror reflection each side..opposite...reflecting the distinct 
 increase/decrease in structure one way vs the other. 
  
 Something else would be what this would look like in the case of the 
 supermassive blackhole at the centre. The immense gravity could see the end 
 to end process to completion a relatively short R from the supermassive 
 blackhole. 
  
 Which would see a still very large tail end doing something slightly 
 different. But the effect on bodies near the black hole would be almost 
 nothing, then whoosh, off a massive cliff toward the centre of the 
 blackhole, but tangentially also. so massively accelerating the orbital 
 speed, possible passing escape velocity (assuming not passed event 
 horizon). But then hitting that gravity cliff from the bottom end, and so 
 bouncing off it back toward the centre. 
  
 So real instability of orbiting stuff, for fasting than expected orbital 
 speed, but trapped by what is effectively a second event horizon further 
 out in the form of that cliff. So the friction and collsions would be 
 extreme, the heat and speed more than expected, and maybe some resistence 
 to crossing the event horizon until the friction slows everything down. 
 Maybe that's why the really huge supermassive's can

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Paul King 
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear Bruno,

No, time is observer dependent as well as observers supply the
 measures. Recall that I see time as a local measure of change. Change
 itself is not observer dependent, it flows eternally as the potential to
 Be of Becoming.


Physical change is observer dependent particularly in a multiverse where
everything is physical.





 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 01:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:


   Like I have written previously, I am past the point of buying the idea
 that there is a Reality out there independent of us that we passively come
 to experience. I am tired of explanations that ask us to believe that
 change is an illusion that somehow persists.



 Is that not contradictory? You are asking us to believe in a time
 independent to us, and to not believe in a reality independent to us.


 Bruno






Can we try a different set of concepts?


 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 27 January 2014 12:48, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Dear LizR,
  :
 the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is
 wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're
 the victims of a confidence trick...

   What other implication does Hoyle's phrasing have? His entire
 discussion of the pigeon holes is to point out that there is no a priori
 order of the holes, it is a subjective delusion that we obtain because of
 our inability to see the whole lot.


 His implication seems to me to be that the subjective experience of time
 can be explained as a phenomenon caused by the order of the pigeon holes,
 together with certain rules linking them together. The rules are basically
 equivalent to thermodynamics (unsurprisingly, we wouldn't get consciousness
 in a universe without an entropy gradient). As one of his characters
 explains...

 John went on, 'All right, let's come now to the contents of the pigeon
 holes. Suppose you choose one of them, say the 137th. You find in it a
 story, as you might find one of those little slips of paper in a Christmas
 cracker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_cracker. But you also
 find statments about the stories you'll find in other pigeon holes. You
 decide to check up on whether these statements about the stories in the
 other pigeon holes are right or not. To your surprise you find the
 statments made about earlier pigeon holes, the 136th, the 135th, and so on,
 are substantially correct. But when you compare with the pigeon holes on
 the other side, the 138th, the 139th,...you find things aren't so good. You
 find a lot of contradictions and discrepancies. This turns out to be the
 same wherever you happen to look, in every pigeon hole. The statements made
 about pigeon holes on the other side are at best diffuse and at the worst
 just plain wrong. Now let's translate this parable into the time problem.
 We'll call the particular pigeon hole, the one you happen to be examining,
 the present. The earlier pigeon holes, the ones for which you find
 substantially correct statements, we call the past. The later pigeon holes,
 the ones for which there isn't too much in the way of correct statments,
 we'll call the future. Let me go on a bit further. What I want to suggest
 is that the actual world is very much like this. Instead of pigeon holes we
 talk about states.'

 Note that the description he gives of the 137th hole applies to *all*the 
 holes - so the present is whichever hole you happen to look in. From
 the subjective, inside view, all moments are the present when they're
 being experienced, and we only experience a flow of time because of their
 contents (a fact which Memento guy illustrates nicely, of course).

 This is a description of a capsule theory of identity. Hoyle introduces
 a flashlight, but then shows that the order in which the flashlight is used
 is irrelevant - the 1st person view from inside the pigeon-holes is of
 continuous subjective experience. In fact, the existence or nonexistence of
 the flashlight is irrelevant to the subjective experience. The flashlight
 was introduced so the characters could think about sampling each pigeon
 hole, as though they could somehow stand outside time - take the bird's
 eye view. But of course in reality they can only take the internal,
 frog's eye view.

 Hence, imho, Hoyle is saying that it is the order of the boxes and the
 laws relating their contents that gives rise to the subjective experience
 of time.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse,

First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only 
with standard physics.

2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me 
as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more.

In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or acceleration 
the effects are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them. 
Take 2 observers A in a gravitational well and B not. In this case B 
observes A's clock SLOW, and A observes B's clock rate SPEED up. They AGREE 
as to this effect. AND the clock time difference PERSISTS after A and B 
meet up afterwards when their clocks are again running at the same 
rate. Therefore in my terminology it is an absolute effect. It is a real 
and actual effect, that both observers agree upon. This is well understood 
and confirmed because it's used in GPS calculation corrections all the time.

Now take the case of A and B moving past each other with a constant 
relative velocity (no acceleration or gravitation). In this case both A and 
B each see each other's clock slow by the same amount. Thus in this case A 
and B do NOT agree. This effect is relative in my terminology. AND assuming 
the relative motion could sudden stop (without any acceleration) that 
effect would not and could not persist. Both clocks would be running at the 
same rate and showing the same clock time t value again. Thus the time 
dilation from relative motion is not an absolute effect in my terminology 
because A and B don't agree on it and because it is not an effect that 
persists after the relative motion ceases.

Hopefully that makes my use of absolute and relative clear?

Of course it is always possible to come up with all sorts of convoluted 
frames, and all those frames are valid in the local context of that frame, 
but this doesn't invalidate my points above.

Edgar

On Monday, January 27, 2014 8:36:53 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:



 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Brent,

 I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous 
 because it doesn't specify frames of reference correctly.

 The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's 
 clock, but obviously not by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of 
 course ACTUALLY objectively ticking slower because it is falling into a 
 gravity well which is an absolute, not a relative phenomenon.


 No it isn't, not in the theory of relativity! Maybe you believe it's 
 absolute since you believe in an absolute present moment, i.e. an 
 absolute truth about which pairs of events are simultaneous. But in 
 relativity one can use many different coordinate systems with different 
 simultaneity conventions, and they are all considered equally valid (you 
 can use the same laws of physics in each of them to get predictions about 
 which events locally coincide, and they will all make the same predictions 
 about such local events). 

 Say the falling observer sets his clock to read 0 seconds at the moment he 
 passes the hovering observer, who also sets his clock to read 0 at that 
 moment. Then according to one definition of simultaneity, it might be true 
 that the event of the falling clock reading 50 seconds is simultaneous with 
 the event of the hovering clock reading 100 seconds--in this coordinate 
 system the falling clock is ticking slower as it travels deeper into the 
 gravity well. But one could certainly design a different coordinate system 
 with a different definition of simultaneity, where the event of the 
 hovering clock reading 100 seconds is simultaneous with the event of the 
 falling clock reading 150 seconds (assuming the falling clock makes it to 
 150 seconds before hitting the singularity)--in this coordinate system it 
 would be the distant hovering clock that's ticking slower, not the falling 
 clock. 

 To emphasize: IN RELATIVITY THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH ABOUT WHICH OF TWO 
 DISTANT CLOCKS IS TICKING SLOWER. If you disagree with this, you are 
 getting confused between how things work in your own personal theory of a 
 universal present (which seems to be entirely faith-based, since you 
 never explain how to define true simultaneity experimentally) and how 
 things work in mainstream relativity.

 Jesse


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-01-27 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Hi Jesse,

 Sorry if I misunderstood you and for the dismissive comment I
 apparently misread your comments...

 As for your other comments in this post. The slowing of the clock in a
 gravity well is an absolute phenomenon, not a relative one.


Are you claiming this is true in relativity, or in your own theories about
an absolute present? If you're talking about mainstream relativity you are
incorrect, there is no absolute slowing of the clock. All arbitrary
smooth coordinate systems are equally valid in general relativity, and one
can certainly design a coordinate system whose simultaneity convention is
such that the falling clock elapses more ticks in a given interval of
coordinate time, not less (as in my example where both clocks read 0 when
they pass next to each other, but simultaneity is defined in such a way
that the falling clock reads 150 simultaneously with the hovering clock
reading 100).

If you disagree, please tell me which of my two claims you're disagreeing
with (or if you disagree with both):

1. All smooth coordinate systems are equally valid in general relativity,
the equations of GR work the same in all of them (see Einstein's statement
at http://www.bartleby.com/173/28.html about arbitrary non-rigid reference
frames, which he cutely calls reference-mollusks, and his statement that
The general principle of relativity requires that all these mollusks can
be used as reference-bodies with equal right and equal success in the
formulation of the general laws of nature; the laws themselves must be
quite independent of the choice of mollusk. Also see the constructing an
arbitrary reference frame discussion on p. 8 of
http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys378/LectureNotes/VectorsTensorsSR.pdf)

2. Among all these arbitrary smooth coordinate systems, it's possible to
come up with some where the falling clock ages more than the hovering clock
between a pair of simultaneous moments in this coordinate system

You could also try asking Brent, who mentioned that he's a physicist--I'm
sure he would confirm what I'm saying.




 Finally there is no pile up at the horizon, as I thought you claimed
 (you did use the term I think), because all infalling objects will fade
 away proportionally to how much they appear to slow.


I did use the term, but only after I had already specified that I was
talking about what would be true in principle if classical EM were
exactly correct, and that the distant observer could detect EM waves that
had been redshifted to arbitrarily high wavelengths.


 So by the time they would begin to appear to pile up they are already
 fading from view. Therefore NO PILEUP, period. I'm still not clear if you
 understand this. It's NOT because of the red shift (which is occurring) but
 because the slowing means fewer and fewer photons per unit time are
 reaching the external observer.


As I said, I was talking about what would be true in classical EM, where
light is not quantized into photons.



 That is because it takes them longer and longer to climb out of the
 increasing gravity well. Contrary to what you seem to say that's an
 absolute phenomenon, not just a matter of frames.


Not in relativity it's not. The arbitrary reference mollusks that
Einstein talks about would include coordinate systems where the coordinate
time for successive light signals to travel from the falling clock to the
hovering clock was actually decreasing, not increasing.



 The external observer is just in a minimally relativistic frame suitable
 to measuring this effect fairly accurately. It will of course be measured
 differently in other frames themselves subject to strong relativistic
 effects.

 By GR, gravitational time dilation is an ABSOLUTE effect, contrary to the
 time dilation of constant relative velocity, which is a RELATIVE SR effect.
 The way you can tell is that if the black hole suddenly vanished the
 previously infalling object's clock would still be reading a past clock
 time even though it would now be running at the same rate as the clock of
 the external observer.


I don't think there is any allowable spacetime (respecting the equations of
GR) where the black hole suddenly vanishes, so this isn't a physically
meaningful scenario. One thing you could do would just be to bring the
falling clock back up to the same position as the hovering clock, and
compare their times locally--as I keep saying, the only objective truths in
relativity are local comparisons at a common point in spacetime, all
coordinate systems agree in their predictions about which events locally
coincide. But even though it's true that the falling clock has elapsed less
time when it's brought back up to the hovering clock and their readings are
compared locally, you could have a coordinate system whose simultaneity
convention was such that the falling clock had been ticking faster during
its freefall towards the horizon, but then the

Re: what is the definition of computation?

Comp works whether you are conscious or unconscious, if it works at all.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




 2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of that
 kind from computationalism.

 Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most common
 one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the field, but this
 has nothing to do with comp.

 Then I allude sometimes about salvia divinorum, for which your remark
 makes much more sense (but still not as a consequence of comp). It is
 normal that altering consciousness products or methods can provide
 information on consciousness.


 So inplicitly you  are agreeing with what I told. You would never accept
 it however.


 Accept what?



  But don´t worry.  That is not bad. It is simply human. To use the desired
 conclussion


 Which desired conclusion. You talk like if I was doing philosophy.




 as an starting axiom is natural.


 Well, I desire that 1+1 = 2. You might say that. But I have no desire that
 comp is true. Nor that it is false. I don't really care. In both case we
 face something extra-ordinary.




 I do not talk about your professional work or your conscious thinking, in
 which you are correct, but about the influence of you hipothesis  in the
 spontaneous thinking about what is true in apparently unrelated questions
 where the conscious does not fire the caution, it is only an hipothesis!
 warning.


 You lost me. Not sure what you are saying. I don't use comp to justify the
 use of coffee or tea in the morning. same with any other psychotropic
 products.



 Most of the thinking is unconscious. That´s why we wake-up with a solution
 for a problem after sleeping. That is an example of how  the individual
 good (desired outcomes at least) establish what is true.


 Which good, which truth?

 As a scientist, I never invoke truth, except of course when I use the
 concept of truth in the subject matter, which is the bread of the
 logicians' work. But we will never pretend that this or that statement is
 true.

 I intuit some misunderstanding, but you are not enough clear so that I can
 point of which precisely.

 Bruno







 (It is not a rethorical question. it is not an accusation. I just ask)


 Marijuana makes things cool and a bit psychedelic.
 To dissociate completely and visit other realities Salvia is more
 efficacious. Also the experience last between 4 and 8 minutes, when
 cannabis or wine inebriate you for about two to four hours.

 But the results are more easily sharable when doing math and logic.

 Normally.

 Bruno




 2014/1/24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:


 On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

  2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net:

 Dear Alberto,

 I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.

 On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:


 Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
 something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital
 computer.
 So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition.
 because
 it embrace everything.


 Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
 simulations,
 representations and all other information related aspects of the
 universe.
 It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the
 physical
 world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation
 can be a
 morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
 thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate
 yet
 related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members
 of the
 Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then, are
 Identical.



 Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using lego
 pieces? No, my dear legologist.

 What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces
 entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation is
 whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and
 thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is
 used
 ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to
 increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it.


 Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to
 their
 input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of
 transformation


 Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that
 produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile.


 A cruise missile is not a computation.
 Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation,
 nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on all
 computations).

 I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no
 controversial notions. the notion of

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

2014-01-27 Thread Brian Tenneson

Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of
rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers.  I saw somewhere
that using an automated theorem prover, one of Godel's incompleteness
theorems was proved by a computer.

The question I raised initially was this: will there ever be a machine or
human who can correctly answer all questions with a mathematical theme that
have answers?  I didn't think so in my original post but now I'm starting
to wonder.  It's the existence of undecidable statements that would
probably lead to the machine or human not being able to do it in general.
 This reminds me of the halting problem.

The good news is we will never run out of mathematical territory to think
about.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.comwrote:

 FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and so are
 a smaller set than the reals.  I'd suppose that if people can figure that
 out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed computer brain
 could, too.
 -Gabe


 On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tenneson wrote:

 There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
 statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic
 the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and
 me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational
 processing. We'll never have a computer, then, that will work as a
 mathematically-omniscient device. By that I mean a computer such that every
 question that has a mathematically-oriented theme having an answer
 truthfully can be answered by such a device. Calculators demonstrate the
 concept but are clearly not mathematically-omniscient: you ask the
 calculator what is 2+2 and press a button and presto you get an answer.
 What I'm talking about would be questions like is the set of rational
 numbers equal in size to the set of real numbers, and get the correct
 answer. So we will never have such a computer no matter what its capacities
 are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain. Unfortunately,
 that means that even for humans, we will never know everything about math.
 Unless something weird would happen and we suddenly had infinite
 capacities; that might change the conclusions.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xabA-SKxTHM/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A theory of dark matter...


On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT 
 to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark 
 matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see that your mention 
 of a gravity gradient I have to get past is relevant...

 Edgar

 
Edgar how do you envisage there would be no large scale resolution of the 
combined gravity of the galaxy? I'd doubt that is what is being said, 
because there's no way for that to make any sense. The planets have their 
gravity, around suns with their gravity, out to the whole galaxy including 
all the dust and gas, get far enough back and that's approximately a mass, 
with a gravity. 
 
The dark matter component accounts extra gravity the radial velocities of 
the galaxy say to be there.
 
As an aside I was going to mention (since you expressed curiosity in your 
original post) that ages ago over on FoAR, I didn't speculate the same 
thing but sort of related, in that I wondered whether gravity might behave 
slightly differently as it compounded for increasing scales and density. 
I'm thinking the more gravity stacks up vertically, the more rapidly, the 
slower it falls away relative to the thin end where its furtherest extent 
current is. 
 
Not in that the big vertical stack falls away more slowly. That's the part 
that stays exactly inverse with r^2. 
 
But that where the thicker slice is adjacent to the thinner slice 
(imagining two cross sections jingling against each other) the slightly 
thicker slice is very slightly pulled back toward the even thicker slice 
right behind and so on. The overall proportionality is then preserved by 
transferring a tiny bit of the thinner adjacent back to the thicker behind 
it. Which it in turn rebalances by pulling a little slice from the one 
ahead. 
 
Another way to do this would be to keep all slices constant in the summed 
gravitational energy, by making slices near the massive object 
itself infinitesimal thickness, and each slice subsequent however much 
thicker it needs to be, to be the same summed gravitational energy. So the 
thickness of the slices get ever longer the ever smaller the gravity 
becomes. 
 
It would only require a very tiny imbalance back in the direction of 
increasing gravity, for the effect to be well into resolving toward the 
edge of the galaxy as decreasing as expecting, and then suddenly WHAM, off 
a cliff, almost vertically straight down to nothing (because  the tail 
accelerated its thinning away to effectively nothing at an ever more 
resolved juncture) 
 
 
What sort of effect would that be in spacetime fabric? What would the 
acceleration be like when objects approach the galaxy and suddenly fall off 
a gravity cliff accerating wildly toward the centre, but also in the 
tangential direction as well. 
 
Anyway, the reason I thought it might make sense, is firstly the effect 
would literally not exist in any gravity that we could accurately measure. 
It'd pretty much be as expected right out to the cliff, because the tiny 
imbalance was paid for entirely by the tail end. 
 
Secondly, it wouldn't be just one cliff. There would be some 
direct correspondence with the rate at which the galaxy becomes more 
dense, varies then tails off end to end. 
 
Galaxies aren't necessarily symmetrical in a straight line from one end to 
the other through the middle. What's interesting about that, is that the 
same effect would exist in both directions, but the 'pattern' would be 
a mirror reflection each side..opposite...reflecting the distinct 
increase/decrease in structure one way vs the other. 
 
Something else would be what this would look like in the case of the 
supermassive blackhole at the centre. The immense gravity could see the end 
to end process to completion a relatively short R from the supermassive 
blackhole. 
 
Which would see a still very large tail end doing something slightly 
different. But the effect on bodies near the black hole would be almost 
nothing, then whoosh, off a massive cliff toward the centre of the 
blackhole, but tangentially also. so massively accelerating the orbital 
speed, possible passing escape velocity (assuming not passed event 
horizon). But then hitting that gravity cliff from the bottom end, and so 
bouncing off it back toward the centre. 
 
So real instability of orbiting stuff, for fasting than expected orbital 
speed, but trapped by what is effectively a second event horizon further 
out in the form of that cliff. So the friction and collsions would be 
extreme, the heat and speed more than expected, and maybe some resistence 
to crossing the event horizon until the friction slows everything down. 
Maybe that's why the really huge supermassive's can sometimes produce that 
vast jet...maybe the energy has to escape that second event horizon, and 
can only make it up the hill as pure energy of the moistest extremely

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Ghibbsa,

I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and 
see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me. 
I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might 
produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter.

In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories proposed 
in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that of John 
Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems

Edgar

On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:41:58 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 ``
 On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:28:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT 
 to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark 
 matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see that your mention 
 of a gravity gradient I have to get past is relevant...

 Edgar

  
 Edgar how do you envisage there would be no large scale resolution of the 
 combined gravity of the galaxy? I'd doubt that is what is being said, 
 because there's no way for that to make any sense. The planets have their 
 gravity, around suns with their gravity, out to the whole galaxy including 
 all the dust and gas, get far enough back and that's approximately a mass, 
 with a gravity. 
  
 The dark matter component accounts extra gravity the radial velocities of 
 the galaxy say to be there.
  
 As an aside I was going to mention (since you expressed curiosity in your 
 original post) that ages ago over on FoAR, I didn't speculate the same 
 thing but sort of related, in that I wondered whether gravity might behave 
 slightly differently as it compounded for increasing scales and density. 
 I'm thinking the more gravity stacks up vertically, the more rapidly, the 
 slower it falls away relative to the thin end where its furtherest extent 
 current is. 
  
 Not in that the big vertical stack falls away more slowly. That's the 
 part that stays exactly inverse with r^2. 
  
 But that where the thicker slice is adjacent to the thinner slice 
 (imagining two cross sections jingling against each other) the slightly 
 thicker slice is very slightly pulled back toward the even thicker slice 
 right behind and so on. The overall proportionality is then preserved by 
 transferring a tiny bit of the thinner adjacent back to the thicker behind 
 it. Which it in turn rebalances by pulling a little slice from the one 
 ahead. 
  
 Another way to do this would be to keep all slices constant in the summed 
 gravitational energy, by making slices near the massive object 
 itself infinitesimal thickness, and each slice subsequent however much 
 thicker it needs to be, to be the same summed gravitational energy. So the 
 thickness of the slices get ever longer the ever smaller the gravity 
 becomes. 
  
 It would only require a very tiny imbalance back in the direction of 
 increasing gravity, for the effect to be well into resolving toward the 
 edge of the galaxy as decreasing as expecting, and then suddenly WHAM, off 
 a cliff, almost vertically straight down to nothing (because  the tail 
 accelerated its thinning away to effectively nothing at an ever more 
 resolved juncture) 
  
  
 What sort of effect would that be in spacetime fabric? What would the 
 acceleration be like when objects approach the galaxy and suddenly fall off 
 a gravity cliff accerating wildly toward the centre, but also in the 
 tangential direction as well. 
  
 Anyway, the reason I thought it might make sense, is firstly the effect 
 would literally not exist in any gravity that we could accurately measure. 
 It'd pretty much be as expected right out to the cliff, because the tiny 
 imbalance was paid for entirely by the tail end. 
  
 Secondly, it wouldn't be just one cliff. There would be some 
 direct correspondence with the rate at which the galaxy becomes more 
 dense, varies then tails off end to end. 
  
 Galaxies aren't necessarily symmetrical in a straight line from one end 
 to the other through the middle. What's interesting about that, is that the 
 same effect would exist in both directions, but the 'pattern' would be 
 a mirror reflection each side..opposite...reflecting the distinct 
 increase/decrease in structure one way vs the other. 
  
 Something else would be what this would look like in the case of the 
 supermassive blackhole at the centre. The immense gravity could see the end 
 to end process to completion a relatively short R from the supermassive 
 blackhole. 
  
 Which would see a still very large tail end doing something slightly 
 different. But the effect on bodies near the black hole would be almost 
 nothing, then whoosh, off a massive cliff toward the centre of the 
 blackhole, but tangentially also. so massively accelerating the orbital 
 speed, possible passing escape

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
 book is really informative about Einstein's religion.


Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
had to say about God:

it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.  If
something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal
it.

And:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could
be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent
structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill
a thinking person with a feeling of humility

And:

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

And:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death.

And:

I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the
structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to
appreciate it.”

Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was sometimes
guilty of the same sin that members of this list habitually commit, falling
in love not with the concept but with the English word God when all
Einstein meant is awe at the structure of the world.

 John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks,


John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous ignorance
and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship that is epidemic on
the everything list.

 John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians.


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:


On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is  
supposed to be responsible for my or our existence.

Sounds like physics to me.

If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their  
time trying to find a TOE.


The physical TOE would be a very natural candidate for the general  
TOE, if it was not dissolving consciousness and person when  
tackling the mind body problem.


The fact that the most coherent and rational materialist tend to  
eliminate consciousness  is coherent with the UDA conclusion. We  
cannot have both a primitive materials universe, and a mechanist  
expanation of the mind.



I have suggested based on string theory that we can have a  
primitive materialistic universe derived from


If it is primitive, it cannot be derived from.
i use primitive in the sense of having to be assumed in the  
theory, or not derivable (yet, accepted).





the effectively complete computations of a metaverse machine and at  
the same time a mind and consciousness derived from an incomplete  
universe machine. That is, mind/body comes from two different comp  
machines, one infinite and the other finite. Richard


It is a bit fuzzy, but that sounds reasonable. Yet, string theory  
comes from experimentation (if only because it is build on QM) which  
is, in comp, a bit of a sort of treachery.


God is indeed treacherous, consisting of the programmer, the  
metaverse comp(uter) machine and each universe comp machine


You are quick.


in my string cosmology. The metaverse spacetime overlaps each  
universe spacetime; and each are at least mental multiverses if not  
physical multiverses. However, physical particles are computed early  
on by the effectively complete metaverse machine. Consciousness  
stems from physical complexity exceeding the Lloyd bit limit  
(10^120) of our universe,


our universe? That is what I want to explain and worse, what a  
mechanist is obliged to explain.
It is not quite compatible with comp to associate consciousness to  
our universe.
That is comp compatible, but only if *that* is derived from  
arithmetic. (And it would be weird and forbid to say yes to any comp  
doctor, as in this case comp, though true, is definitely not  
practical: we can't emulate in one skull the physical complexity  
exceeding the Lloyd bit limit (10^120) of our universe.



which allows an unfettered connection to the metaverse, a sort of  
Platonia. [Perhaps]



I don't want to throw cold water on this, but if it is correct, and if  
mechanism is correct, the logical modest point is that (to be TOE  
complete and not put the person under the rug),  you need to derive  
this from any first order specification of any universal system  
(machine, language, combinator, number, game, finite set theory, etc.)


You might have the correct theology, but with mechanism, you have to  
derive it from any universal u, computing a universal function phi_u,   
in the list of the phi_i.
Equivalently you have to prove, in your theory if you want, that your  
theory solves the comp measure problem.


You might try to explain what is the effectively complete (I know only  
sigma_1 set or sentence to be like that in some sense) metaverse  
machine (it looks like the UD). And why particles are computed before  
the dreams? I don't believe, nor made sense of Consciousness stems  
from physical complexity exceeding the Lloyd bit limit (10^120) of our  
universe, but that does not mean that there is no interesting idea  
there.  The comp subst level might be low then, below Planck length.  
Perhaps.


Bruno



Richard


This prevents the use of the G/G* separation to be exploited for  
consciousness and qualia.


Bruno





Consciousness is the grain of dust in the picture of reality, which  
will force us to come back to seriousness in the fundamental  
questioning about the mind.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

2014-01-27 Thread Brian Tenneson

Some basic.questions.  When you say PA, do you mean the set of all theorems
entailed by the axioms of Peano arithmetic?  Does this include the true
(relative to PA of course) wffs that are not provable from PA alone?

How can it be that PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency because it is
inconsistent?  Do you mean that it is consistent relative to itself but
inconsistent in the metalanguage?  Or else how can we have it be both
consistent and inconsistent?

This is probably way off the subject (hope that's ok with you): isn't all
mathematical truth relative to the formal system one is operating in?  all
mathematical truth is relative to the formal system one is operating in is
relative to the formal system I call rational discourse in which
mathematical discourse and machine-level discourse are sub-systems.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:12, Brian Tenneson wrote:

 Yes, some day a computer might be able to figure out that the set of
 rationals is not equipollent to the set of real numbers.


 A Lôbian machine like ZF can do that already.



 I saw somewhere that using an automated theorem prover, one of Godel's
 incompleteness theorems was proved by a computer.


 Boyer and Moore, yes, but that is not conceptuallydifferent than ZF,
 except that the Boyer-Moore machine uses more efficient sort of AI path.

 Gödel discovered that PM already proves his own incompleteness theorem.
 All Lôbian machine proves their own Gödel's theorem. They all prove If I
 am consistent, then I can't prove my consistency.



 The question I raised initially was this: will there ever be a machine or
 human who can correctly answer all questions with a mathematical theme that
 have answers?


 All? No, for any machine i in the phi_i.
 But that is less clear for evolving machines, whose evolution rule is not
 part of the program of the machine. Of course, at each moment of her
 life, she will be incomplete, but if her evolution is enough non
 computable, or using some special oracle, it might be that the machine
 will generate the infinitely many truth of arithmetic, but not in any
 provable way.


  I didn't think so in my original post but now I'm starting to wonder.
  It's the existence of undecidable statements that would probably lead to
 the machine or human not being able to do it in general.  This reminds me
 of the halting problem.


 Those are related. Undecidable is always relative. Consistent(PA) is not
 provable by PA, but is provable in two lines in the theory PA+con(PA). Of
 course PA+con(PA) cannot prove con(PA+con(PA)).

 What about PA+con(I), with I = PA+con(I). It exists as we can eliminate
 the occurence of I by using the Dx = xx method. Well, in this case
 PA+con(I) can prove its own consistency, but only because it is actually
 inconsistent.


 The good news is we will never run out of mathematical territory to think
 about.


 Yes indeed, even if we confine ourselves on elementary (first order)
 arithmetic. There is an infinity of surprises there.

 Bruno




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.comwrote:

 FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and so
 are a smaller set than the reals.  I'd suppose that if people can figure
 that out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed computer brain
 could, too.
 -Gabe


 On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tenneson wrote:

 There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
 statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic
 the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and
 me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational
 processing. We'll never have a computer, then, that will work as a
 mathematically-omniscient device. By that I mean a computer such that every
 question that has a mathematically-oriented theme having an answer
 truthfully can be answered by such a device. Calculators demonstrate the
 concept but are clearly not mathematically-omniscient: you ask the
 calculator what is 2+2 and press a button and presto you get an answer.
 What I'm talking about would be questions like is the set of rational
 numbers equal in size to the set of real numbers, and get the correct
 answer. So we will never have such a computer no matter what its capacities
 are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain. Unfortunately,
 that means that even for humans, we will never know everything about math.
 Unless something weird would happen and we suddenly had infinite
 capacities; that might change the conclusions.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xabA-SKxTHM/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-27 Thread Jason Resch

On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Jason,

As many as are possible.

So if it is possible that they all exist, how is that different from
block time?

Jason

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Jason,

I would not say that only a single present moment of time
exists. I would say that we have a concept of a present moment
that we may believe that each person has. Maybe you are directing
this post to Edgar...

But you argue against block time, so how many points in time do you
believe to exist?

Jason

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

Stephen,

If you say that only a single present moment of time exists, that
implies that the existence of that moment in time is entirely
sufficient to explain your current experience.

Now consider if the rate of flow of time slowed down, such that it
took a thousand years to go from one Plank time to the next. No one
would feel any different, as in each moment in time, still, only one
point in time exists, and it is still the same moments (it just
remains the present moment for a longer period of time than before).
Since they are still the same moments, everyone's state and
experiences remain the same.

Now let's say the flow of time suddenly stopped, so that it froze at
a single instant in time. As we already concluded, according to the
idea of a flowing time, the existence of a single point in time is
enough to explain your experience of now, since according to this
idea, the past and future do not exist (so what role could they play
in effecting what you feel?)

So if the objective flow of time makes no difference to our
perception of time, and even if the flow of time stopped completely,
it would make no difference to our brain states, perceptions, or
conclusions, then it seems to be that postulating the flow of time
to be ontologically or fundamentally necessary is completely
unnecessary and without base. We cannot say if time flows, how fast
it flows, or whether or not more than one present moment exists, so
for what reason should we believe that the current present moment
will disappear and be replaced with a new future moment?

The idea that time flows, when followed to its logical ends, seems
to undermine the very reasons for assuming it in the first place.

Jason

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear LizR,

Umm, I thought that I wrote up a semi-technical argument against
the block universe concept. Maybe you didn't see it. I will try
again to make the case using your remarks below.

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2014 08:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Either way the concept of a block universe is one of the most mind
blowingly moronic ideas anyone ever came up with. It reminds me of
the ideas me and my buddies used to come up with in Jr. High School
just for laughs but which no one was dumb enough to ever take
seriously.

But people actually do, very smart people too!

Even I do, so not just smart people.

Stephen, you have to provide some reason why the block universe
concept, which was used in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics,
is wrong.

We now know, given the weight of evidence in support of QM, that
Newtonian physics is wrong, even thought it can be used for making
approximations when we can safely assume that the uncertainty
principle and relativistic effects are negligible. There are
metaphysical assumptions built into Newtonian physics, many of which
survive into GR.
One of these assumptions is that objects have properties innately,
completely independent of whether or not those properties are
measured. We know that this assumption is nonsense and should not be
used in our reasoning.
I hope that I don't need to duplicate what one can find in any
good article by, say Jeremy Butterfield, about the implications of
Bell's theorem. See, for example, http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/Butterfield1992/Butterfield1992.pdf
for yourself.

Your attempt using QM misused the concept of simultaneity, and in
any case QM works fine it you make the block universe into a block
multiverse - all the quantum probabilities come out correctly, as
per Everett, from a deterministic evolution.

Not at all! A block universe is a static 4 dimensional object. Am I
mistaken in this belief? A block multiverse is a word salad, IMHO.

The fact that it's a block Hilbert space (or whatever) doesn't stop
time evolution being mapped along a dimension. That is all 'block
universe means - that time is a dimension.

Ah! How exactly does this mapping of time evolution occur?

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

2014-01-27 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

FWIW, under the usual definitions, the rationals are enumerable and so are 
a smaller set than the reals.  I'd suppose that if people can figure that 
out with our nifty fleshy brains, then a well-designed computer brain 
could, too.
-Gabe

On Friday, January 24, 2014 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Brian Tenneson wrote:

 There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true 
 statements lacking proof. There are also false statements about arithmetic 
 the proof of whose falsehood is impossible; not just impossible for you and 
 me but for a computer of any capacity or other forms of rational 
 processing. We'll never have a computer, then, that will work as a 
 mathematically-omniscient device. By that I mean a computer such that every 
 question that has a mathematically-oriented theme having an answer 
 truthfully can be answered by such a device. Calculators demonstrate the 
 concept but are clearly not mathematically-omniscient: you ask the 
 calculator what is 2+2 and press a button and presto you get an answer. 
 What I'm talking about would be questions like is the set of rational 
 numbers equal in size to the set of real numbers, and get the correct 
 answer. So we will never have such a computer no matter what its capacities 
 are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain. Unfortunately, 
 that means that even for humans, we will never know everything about math. 
 Unless something weird would happen and we suddenly had infinite 
 capacities; that might change the conclusions.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A theory of dark matter...

2014-01-27 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only
 with standard physics.

 2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me
 as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more.

 In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or acceleration
 the effects are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them.
 Take 2 observers A in a gravitational well and B not. In this case B
 observes A's clock SLOW, and A observes B's clock rate SPEED up.



By observes do you just mean what they see visually--how much time passes
on their own clock between receiving light signals from successive ticks of
the other one's clock? If that's what you mean, then what you say above
would be true, but this wouldn't help in making sense of your claim in
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg47215.htmlthat
Thus in the infalling observer's experience as his clock slows he
will
never actually reach the event horizon because his clock comes to a
complete ACTUAL PHYSICAL stop at that point--was that statement meant to
refer to what happens in relativity, or in your own theory of absolute
time?

Likewise, if you're just talking about visual observations, this doesn't
help make sense of your claim in
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg47217.htmlthat
it takes them [the photons] longer and longer to climb out of
the increasing gravity well. Contrary to what you seem to say that's
an absolute phenomenon, not just a matter of frames. How would one define
the time to climb out the increasing gravity well, which is a time
interval between two events at different points in spacetime (the event of
the photons being emitted by the falling clock deep in the gravity well,
and the event of the photons being received by the hovering clock higher in
the gravity well), purely in terms of local visual observations? I can't
see any way to define this amount of time in relativity, except by using a
coordinate system which assigns time-coordinates to each event.


 Now take the case of A and B moving past each other with a constant
 relative velocity (no acceleration or gravitation). In this case both A and
 B each see each other's clock slow by the same amount.


If you are talking about visual observations, then they would each see the
othe's clock running slower if they were moving apart, but they would see
the other's clock running faster if they were moving towards each other,
due to the Doppler effect. On the other hand, if you're talking about how
fast the other's clock is ticking in an observer's own inertial rest
frame--a coordinate-based judgment, not a purely visual one--then each one
judges the other's clock to be running slower regardless of the direction
of movement.




 Thus in this case A and B do NOT agree. This effect is relative in my
 terminology. AND assuming the relative motion could sudden stop (without
 any acceleration) that effect would not and could not persist. Both clocks
 would be running at the same rate and showing the same clock time t value
 again.


Only if they suddenly stopped simultaneously in the frame where they were
both moving in opposite directions at the same speed. If they suddenly
stopped simultaneously in some other frame, their t value would not be the
same at subsequent times in their mutual rest frame.


Jesse

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
 planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with
 elan vital.


Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws of
carbon chemistry, and future computers will almost certainly contain carbon
nanotubes and 2D carbon Graphene sheets.  And I have no idea what elan
vital is and those who like the term have even less idea than I do, but
whatever it is if meat can have it I see no reason why a computer can't
have it too. So even by your definition a computer could be alive.

But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is
not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
God?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.


Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that clearly
and unambiguously explains exactly what  the hard problem is. Exactly
what is it that you expect a successful consciousness theory to do?

I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels when it is
being processed; if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can
only mean one thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of  
that book is really informative about Einstein's religion.


Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein  
himself had to say about God:


it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious  
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not  
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have  
expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called  
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of  
the world so far as our science can reveal it.



This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a  
non personal God.





And:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything  
that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is  
a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very  
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of  
humility


Yes. That's very close to my feeling even on only the consequences of  
the elementary arithmetic.

You make my point again.







And:

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even  
naive.



Yes. Absolutely. You are the one defending the concept of a personal  
God. I am agnostic on that aspect of God.







And:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,  
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man  
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of  
punishment and hope of reward after death.


Again you illustrate magnificently the point I try to make. You can  
feel to be a sincere believer without acknowledging the local  
misunderstandings repeated and justified by violent means for centuries.


On the contrary, the more you believe the more you are shocked by  
the fairy tales, and the institutions.


This does not entail that a confessional theologians will not write  
correct theological proposition.


Then if your study comparative theology, you can also be stroked of  
what is common in many believer talks.







And:

I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe  
at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate  
senses to appreciate it.”


This means that Einstein, unlike many, was aware of his theological  
Aristotelian belief.
His feeling toward that reality is accompanied by an awareness of the  
mystery.






Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was  
sometimes guilty of the same sin that members of this list  
habitually commit, falling in love not with the concept but with the  
English word God when all Einstein meant is awe at the structure  
of the world.


Not just awe at the structure of the world, but conscious of its  
mystery.


Comp reduces that mystery to another one, the arithmetical truth (or  
bigger if you want, with comp the awe is the same).


You are biased toward Einstein, because you could explain is  
purposeful explanation of why he is definitely not an atheist.


Where I separate from Einstein, on religion, and go nearer Gödel, on  
religion, is that I think that theology can be an object of serious  
and rigorous study.






 John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks,

John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous  
ignorance



sigh




and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship that is  
epidemic on the everything list.


Wrong. We cite only the people who get the idea first. It is the  
common practice. Or, we give precise repesentation theorems. Read the  
Plotinus paper.


 You seem to be unaware of all your assumptions, which basically,  
started from the greek one, in our local geographical history.
You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,  
physicalist) theology for granted.


if you decide to be serious on the mind-body problem, you can  
understand that it is not *granted*.






 John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


False. I told you this before, and more than one time.

You confirm my feeling that people who pretend to dislike religion are  
those who have a religion, but forbid so much the doubt about it, that  
they convince themselves that it is not a religion, but the TRUTH.


The fact that you ignore that you are religious, and indeed christian  
(in absolute value) will not help you for making you one epsilon less  
christian.


If you want to be serious in those matter, you have to be aware of all  
ontological commitments, and re-articulate them in precise theories.


Bruno





  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To

Re: A theory of dark matter...


On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and 
 see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me. 
 I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might 
 produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter.

 In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories proposed 
 in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that of John 
 Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems

 Edgar

 
 Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of the 
rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively increases 
over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, but 
compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of decrease 
of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over increasing 
distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be to 
progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the 
source. 
 
As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the effect 
entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and because it 
progressively intensifies further from the source, and because that means 
the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail end (because 
the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, where the rate 
at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted beyond a 
certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that actually 
slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased rate of 
descrease after a point,  is progressively exacberated by an increased bias 
for slowing the other side of the point given there is now less tension the 
other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the other side of the 
line. 
 
So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than 
predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth 
decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a 
shorter distance. 
 
All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the 
observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser 
ordinary matter in the galaxy. 
 
It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly could be 
checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity solutions. It 
doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the conjecture part. 
 
'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be protesting of 
that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the effort to 
understand so simple an idea. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.


So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic as
intelligence or consciousness and that has absolutely nothing to do with
morality should nevertheless be called God because it adds to clarity.

Bruno, please explain to me why this would be a wise use of language.

 Comp reduces that mystery to another one,


Well good for comp.

 Read the Plotinus paper.


No thanks, I'm sick to death of ancestor worship.

 You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist, physicalist)
 theology for granted.


I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever
lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field.

 You confirm my feeling that people who pretend to dislike religion are
 those who have a religion,


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

 The fact that you ignore that you are religious, and indeed christian (in
 absolute value) will not help you for making you one epsilon less
 christian.


 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 16:33, Richard Ruquist wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 03:44, LizR wrote:

 On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
  God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to
 be responsible for my or our existence.

 Sounds like physics to me.


 If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time
 trying to find a TOE.


 The physical TOE would be a very natural candidate for the general TOE,
 if it was not dissolving consciousness and person when tackling the mind
 body problem.

 The fact that the most coherent and rational materialist tend to
 eliminate consciousness  is coherent with the UDA conclusion. We cannot
 have both a primitive materials universe, and a mechanist expanation of the
 mind.



 I have suggested based on string theory that we can have a primitive
 materialistic universe derived from


 If it is primitive, it cannot be derived from.
 i use primitive in the sense of having to be assumed in the theory,
 or not derivable (yet, accepted).


Well, I got your attention. I'm happy to use primitive in a way that you
understand.






 the effectively complete computations of a metaverse machine and at the
 same time a mind and consciousness derived from an incomplete universe
 machine. That is, mind/body comes from two different comp machines, one
 infinite and the other finite. Richard


 It is a bit fuzzy, but that sounds reasonable. Yet, string theory comes
 from experimentation (if only because it is build on QM) which is, in comp,
 a bit of a sort of treachery.


 God is indeed treacherous, consisting of the programmer, the metaverse
 comp(uter) machine and each universe comp machine


 You are quick.


Thank you. But I am just finally brave enough to lay it all out.




 in my string cosmology. The metaverse spacetime overlaps each universe
 spacetime; and each are at least mental multiverses if not physical
 multiverses. However, physical particles are computed early on by the
 effectively complete metaverse machine. Consciousness stems from physical
 complexity exceeding the Lloyd bit limit (10^120) of our universe,


 our universe? That is what I want to explain and worse, what a mechanist
 is obliged to explain.
 It is not quite compatible with comp to associate consciousness to our
 universe.


Right on. Consciousness is actually computed in the metaverse once and for
all time, like energy and matter, in a block metaverse containing
universes, including all its physical machinations,* by your comp
theory*assuming effective completeness.

I imagine, conjecture if you will, that the degree of completeness of a
metaverse comp machine relates to effective particle-creation resolution
(like a sub-Planck volume) as a function of its information bit-limit,
which in turn depends on the size of the metaverse.

We can imagine a growing metaverse which at first is only complete enough
to compute/create real pockets of energy (black holes) but at a later stage
of growth is complete enough to compute/create particles of energy and
particles of matter using complex-arithmetic quantum computations.

Richard



 That is comp compatible, but only if *that* is derived from arithmetic.
 (And it would be weird and forbid to say yes to any comp doctor, as in
 this case comp, though true, is definitely not practical: we can't emulate
 in one skull the physical complexity exceeding the Lloyd bit limit
 (10^120) of our universe.


 which allows an unfettered connection to the metaverse, a sort of
 Platonia. [Perhaps]



 I don't want to throw cold water on this, but if it is correct, and if
 mechanism is correct, the logical modest point is that (to be TOE
 complete and not put the person under the rug),  you need to derive this
 from any first order specification of any universal system (machine,
 language, combinator, number, game, finite set theory, etc.)

 You might have the correct theology, but with mechanism, you have to
 derive it from any universal u, computing a universal function phi_u,  in
 the list of the phi_i.
 Equivalently you have to prove, in your theory if you want, that your
 theory solves the comp measure problem.


That's why I hook my string cosmology to your comp star. But I am still
unsure about the measure problem which seems to result from 1p controlled
experiments, but such measures may not apply in general.



 You might try to explain what is the effectively complete (I know only
 sigma_1 set or sentence to be like that in some sense) metaverse machine
 (it looks like the UD). And why particles are computed before the dreams?

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

  GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!


  I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is just
 nuts and stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's
 cutting edge scientific questions by reading what some Greek said 2500
 years ago is just idiotic.


  Oh! You agree with yourself here. Nice!


I wasn't quoting myself I didn't use all caps. I was quoting Platonist
Guitar Cowboy (I could be wrong but sometimes I suspect that's not the name
on his drivers license or birth certificate).

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com 
mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


 GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!


I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is just nuts and 
stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's cutting edge scientific 
questions by reading what some Greek said 2500 years ago is just idiotic.


Oh! You agree with yourself here. Nice!


Well, it's less embarrassing than disagreeing with yourself.  :-)

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Jan 2014, at 02:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be responsible 
for my or our existence.


Sounds like physics to me.


Yes. if you believe theologically that physics is the ultimate explanation of our 
existence.


If physics is your theology,


No, physics is the scientific search for what is fundamental. Theology is the defense of 
the idea that god is what is fundamental.  Physics puts no constraint on what is 
fundamental except that it can studied in a public way.



then the UDA shows that it is a non-mechanist theology.


It's non-material - but as you often point out material is undefined.

You can't say yes to the doctor, as you can't survive the substitution qua 
computatio. You need some magic properties of the physical object to do that.


Why do I need any more magic than the magic that was in the neurons or molecules, which 
are physical?


If not, you cannot distinguish the 1p in a physical reality and the 1p in the 
arithmetical reality.


Why should they be distinct?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be
responsible for my or our existence.

Sounds like physics to me.

If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time
trying to
find a TOE.

Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend. Bruno's fond of
pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is fundamental but don't
define it. Of course they might say, It's whatever we find to be
fundamental...and we're calling it doG.

Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's using it, but generally
I'd take it to be something like beyond our understanding, hence my (tongue in
cheek) comment.

I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if physicist decided
that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that they should just shut up and
calculate from now on.

Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem. If you calculate stuff accurately
and predict stuff that surprising, people will think you've explained it.

By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just dismiss the hard
problem.

Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that physicalism is wrong.
net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not only for consciousness, but also for the
origin of matter.

Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here.

That's the main point. Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it has explained
gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species and lots of other stuff.
But what it has done is show their relations and made accurate predictions AND
*eliminated* the things people asked to be explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed
the planets around. Darwin didn't explain how animals adapted. Maxwell didn't explain the
luminiferous ether. Just like we can't explain to Edgar how gravity gets out of a black
hole. Science advances a lot by eliminativism.

Brent

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:

 There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
 statements lacking proof.


Yes.

 There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose
 falsehood is impossible;


A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or
falsehood of something; if Goldbach's Conjecture is untrue then there is a
FINITE even number that is NOT the sum of 2 primes. It would only take a
finite number of lines to list all the prime numbers smaller than that even
number and show that no two of them equal that even number, and that would
be a proof that Goldbach's Conjecture is wrong.

The real problem would come if Goldbach's Conjecture is true (so we'll
never find two primes to show it's wrong) but can not be proven to be true
(so we will never find a finite proof to show its correct).

  John K Clark









 not just impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or
 other forms of rational processing. We'll never have a computer, then, that
 will work as a mathematically-omniscient device. By that I mean a computer
 such that every question that has a mathematically-oriented theme having
 an answer truthfully can be answered by such a device. Calculators
 demonstrate the concept but are clearly not mathematically-omniscient: you
 ask the calculator what is 2+2 and press a button and presto you get an
 answer. What I'm talking about would be questions like is the set of
 rational numbers equal in size to the set of real numbers, and get the
 correct answer. So we will never have such a computer no matter what its
 capacities are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain.
 Unfortunately, that means that even for humans, we will never know
 everything about math. Unless something weird would happen and we suddenly
 had infinite capacities; that might change the conclusions.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On 1/27/2014 5:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous because it doesn't
specify frames of reference correctly.

The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's clock, but
obviously not by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of course ACTUALLY objectively
ticking slower because it is falling into a gravity well which is an absolute, not a
relative phenomenon.

Contrary to what you said, the object's comoving clock DOES actually 'physically' (your
words) tick slower. it's just that the infalling clock can't measure its own slowing...

Obviously one can't tell how fast a clock is ticking by comparing the clock to itself.
That's proper time which always appears to tick at the same rate, but ONLY because all
comoving processes tick in synch. Proper time does NOT measure an actual gravitational
time dilation, or any time dilation for that matter.

The infalling observer has an ABSOLUTE slowing of its clock due to increasing
gravitation but just cannot locally measure that slowing.

The infalling observer just falls in an goes about his business (assuming a very large BH)
until he gets spaghettified by tidal forces near the singularity. There's no slowing of
his clock. What could possibly be the mechanism for slowing it? He's on an inertial
frame. He isn't even accelerated. For the clock to slow would be a violation of the
principle of equivalence.

Thus in the infalling observer's experience as his clock slows he will never actually
reach the event horizon because his clock comes to a complete ACTUAL PHYSICAL stop at
that point.

Nope. Try reading Lewis Carroll Epstein's Relativity Visualized. A good clock keeps
proper time along its world line. Gravitational time dilation is a purely geometric
effect of spacetime (just like the twin paradox). The clock *appears* to run slower in
the gravitational well because it has to traverse more space.

Brent

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

2014-01-27 Thread Brian Tenneson

You could always just add it and its negation to the list of axioms (though
not at the same time, of course) and see where that leads, if anywhere.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:

  There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
 statements lacking proof.


 Yes.

  There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose
 falsehood is impossible;


 A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or
 falsehood of something; if Goldbach's Conjecture is untrue then there is a
 FINITE even number that is NOT the sum of 2 primes. It would only take a
 finite number of lines to list all the prime numbers smaller than that even
 number and show that no two of them equal that even number, and that would
 be a proof that Goldbach's Conjecture is wrong.

 The real problem would come if Goldbach's Conjecture is true (so we'll
 never find two primes to show it's wrong) but can not be proven to be true
 (so we will never find a finite proof to show its correct).

   John K Clark









 not just impossible for you and me but for a computer of any capacity or
 other forms of rational processing. We'll never have a computer, then, that
 will work as a mathematically-omniscient device. By that I mean a computer
 such that every question that has a mathematically-oriented theme having
 an answer truthfully can be answered by such a device. Calculators
 demonstrate the concept but are clearly not mathematically-omniscient: you
 ask the calculator what is 2+2 and press a button and presto you get an
 answer. What I'm talking about would be questions like is the set of
 rational numbers equal in size to the set of real numbers, and get the
 correct answer. So we will never have such a computer no matter what its
 capacities are, even if computer encompasses the entire human brain.
 Unfortunately, that means that even for humans, we will never know
 everything about math. Unless something weird would happen and we suddenly
 had infinite capacities; that might change the conclusions.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xabA-SKxTHM/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-27 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

   Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.


 So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
 not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic as
 intelligence or consciousness and that has absolutely nothing to do with
 morality should nevertheless be called God because it adds to clarity.

 Bruno, please explain to me why this would be a wise use of language.


  Comp reduces that mystery to another one,


 Well good for comp.

  Read the Plotinus paper.


 No thanks, I'm sick to death of ancestor worship.


Then don't pretend to engage/continue discussion. If you're really sick of
something, you stop doing it. Unless you're lying, of course.

Instead you continue regurgitating the same crap like a bot, and complain
that you're reading something that you're sick of reading, because you read
it all the time on this miserable list.

That makes some real sense, John. Good luck with that.



  You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist, physicalist)
 theology for granted.


 I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever
 lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field.

  You confirm my feeling that people who pretend to dislike religion are
 those who have a religion,


 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
 that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

  The fact that you ignore that you are religious, and indeed christian
 (in absolute value) will not help you for making you one epsilon less
 christian.


  Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
 that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


Anybody needed proof for John's regular sermon? Now available to you
daily... As loopy as any totally repeating program or ranting priest.
Completely for free, like all spam.

You gonna copy us your same lines a few hundred times now for not getting
your sermon?

Jealous of Edgar that you employ this kind of tactic now? PGC



   John K Clark

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-27 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

  GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!


  I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is
 just nuts and stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's
 cutting edge scientific questions by reading what some Greek said 2500
 years ago is just idiotic.


  Oh! You agree with yourself here. Nice!


 I wasn't quoting myself I didn't use all caps. I was quoting Platonist
 Guitar Cowboy (I could be wrong but sometimes I suspect that's not the name
 on his drivers license or birth certificate).


Sometimes? Which times? Today the name on my birth certificate is
Platoninja Goofball Captain. It's a pleasure.

But you did make the Greek philosophy ignoramus statement, even if you
forgot your trademark caps for once.

So you were quoting yourself... again. See:





 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


  See Plotinus


 No thanks, Greek philosophers were ignoramuses.



It seems they weren't the only ones.

A statement concerning philosophy, Greek or otherwise, is philosophical.

A statement concerning non-existence of God is theological. A strong and
total one is fundamentalist against everything it rails against.  PGC









  John K Clark




  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,
Just put the origin of your GR BH solution at the singularity and most all
is explained.



On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
 God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be
 responsible for my or our existence.

  Sounds like physics to me.


  If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time
 trying to find a TOE.

  Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend.  Bruno's
 fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is fundamental
 but don't define it.  Of course they might say, It's whatever we find to
 be fundamental...and we're calling it doG.

  Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's using
 it, but generally I'd take it to be something like beyond our
 understanding, hence my (tongue in cheek) comment.

  I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if
 physicist decided that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that they
 should just shut up and calculate from now on.


 Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.  If you calculate
 stuff accurately and predict stuff that surprising, people will think
 you've explained it.


  By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just dismiss
 the hard problem.

  Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that
 physicalism is wrong. net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not only
 for consciousness, but also for the origin of matter.

  Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here.


 That's the main point.  Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it
 has explained gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species
 and lots of other stuff.  But what it has done is show their relations and
 made accurate predictions AND *eliminated* the things people asked to be
 explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed the planets around. Darwin
 didn't explain how animals adapted.  Maxwell didn't explain the
 luminiferous ether. Just like we can't explain to Edgar how gravity gets
 out of a black hole.  Science advances a lot by eliminativism.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-27 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
 God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be
 responsible for my or our existence.

  Sounds like physics to me.


  If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time
 trying to find a TOE.

  Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend.  Bruno's
 fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is fundamental
 but don't define it.  Of course they might say, It's whatever we find to
 be fundamental...and we're calling it doG.

  Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's using
 it, but generally I'd take it to be something like beyond our
 understanding, hence my (tongue in cheek) comment.

  I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if
 physicist decided that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that they
 should just shut up and calculate from now on.


 Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.  If you calculate
 stuff accurately and predict stuff that surprising, people will think
 you've explained it.


  By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just dismiss
 the hard problem.

  Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that
 physicalism is wrong. net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not only
 for consciousness, but also for the origin of matter.

  Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here.


 That's the main point.  Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it
 has explained gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species
 and lots of other stuff.  But what it has done is show their relations and
 made accurate predictions AND *eliminated* the things people asked to be
 explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed the planets around. Darwin
 didn't explain how animals adapted.  Maxwell didn't explain the
 luminiferous ether. Just like we can't explain to Edgar how gravity gets
 out of a black hole.  Science advances a lot by eliminativism.


I think science loses something when respect for ignorance and limits of
knowledge, and other ignoramus ideas of old Greeks, gives way completely to
liberty in all directions, eliminating everything in its path.

What's left is our local animal, bestial thing, which science then
increasingly has to serve because dominance stands unopposed as value and
point of reference: NSA building quatum computers, weapons, fossil fuel
stuff, wars, discrimination and construction of enemies in public mind,
etc. become much easier to justify.

So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we
built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them
until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't
give a sh•t how to get there... Science that advances by eliminativism
comes with a price and some side-effects. And the ignoramus Greeks were on
to this already. Ends can only justify means in some particular real
emergency, not on lies, and the toughness of this question is
underestimated. PGC



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-27 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

  I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
 planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with
 elan vital.


 Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws of
 carbon chemistry, and future computers will almost certainly contain carbon
 nanotubes and 2D carbon Graphene sheets.  And I have no idea what elan
 vital is and those who like the term have even less idea than I do, but
 whatever it is if meat can have it I see no reason why a computer can't
 have it too. So even by your definition a computer could be alive.


To be sure there was no misunderstanding, I do not seriously subscribe to
that definition of life. Rather, I was using your own phrasing to show how
it can be ridiculous it is to hold the meanings of words cannot change and
must remain absolutely static. For we find that the meanings of many words
change and evolve along with our understanding of the world.



 But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
 I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
 goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
 existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is
 not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
 God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital
found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms
life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in
higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind
of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a
common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many
religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top
of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to
conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and
our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out
the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain
ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or
not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something
else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some
thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an
incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew
words each time we learned something new.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A theory of dark matter...


On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jesse,

First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only with standard 
physics.


2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me as to what is 
meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more.


In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or acceleration the effects 
are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them. Take 2 observers A in a 
gravitational well and B not. In this case B observes A's clock SLOW, and A observes B's 
clock rate SPEED up. They AGREE as to this effect.


They can't agree on that.  They can only agree via signals the their clocks *appear* to 
run at different rates.  Just like the twins in the SR twin paradox.


AND the clock time difference PERSISTS after A and B meet up afterwards when their 
clocks are again running at the same rate. Therefore in my terminology it is an absolute 
effect. It is a real and actual effect, that both observers agree upon. This is well 
understood and confirmed because it's used in GPS calculation corrections all the time.


Yes, it's real that they have traveled through different intervals of spacetime - just 
like the twins in the twin paradox.


You seem determined to ignore the basic principle of GR, it is a *geometric theory of 
spacetime*  Geometry doesn't make clocks change speed.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor


On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing what life would 
be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain fools us into thinking we have 
continuous existence. It isn't too much of a stretch from imagining living in 5 minute 
segments to realising that we could equally well live in instants, with all of our 
memory being what's there right now, what's available to us in that instant, that 
pgeonhole. After all, logically, given the assumption of locality in physics, that's all 
we'd /expect/ to be available.


There's a play Random by a local playwright, Michael Perlmutter, in which a psychiatrist 
is treating a man who claims that he doesn't live his life in order.  He remembers 
segments of his childhood, but also some segments of the future and with gaps in between.  
Of course each segment has a consistent arrow of time within it.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is 
being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never 
denied this but have expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called 
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as 
our science can reveal it.



This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non 
personal God.


No.  That Einstein does not believe in a personal god does not entail that he does believe 
in an impersonal god.  That's a pretty sloppy inference for a logician, and you do it 
twice more.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014-01-27 LizR lizj...@gmail.com

 On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the
 very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter
 or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.


 Dark matter was discovered in 1932; and Einstein did at least predict one
 form of dark energy. One thing of major significance that hasn't been
 discovered was the Big Bang,


 That's not true, it was discovered by Georges Lemaître in 1931... but the
 name came from Hoyle later...

 The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s (I think?) and a
primordial explosion was *theorised* by Lemaitre, but until the discovery
of the microwave background in the '60s that was only one of several
competing theories put forward to explain the cosmic expansion. The CMB
radiation (more or less) clinched it for the Big Bang, since no other
theory predicted that. (Although I believe Fred Hoyle tried to explain it
with some mechanism compatible with the Steady State, but it was too ad hoc
to be convincing to anyone else.)

What I meant was that the Big Bang *as the only viable explanation for the
cosmic expansion* was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in the '60s. Sorry,
I should have been more precise.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
floating around the web.


On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
 book is really informative about Einstein's religion.


 Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
 had to say about God:

 it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
 lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
 God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.  If
 something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
 admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal
 it.

 And:

 I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that
 could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a
 magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and
 that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility

 And:

 The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

 And:

 A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
 education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
 indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
 and hope of reward after death.

 And:

 I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the
 structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to
 appreciate it.”

 Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was sometimes
 guilty of the same sin that members of this list habitually commit, falling
 in love not with the concept but with the English word God when all
 Einstein meant is awe at the structure of the world.

  John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks,


 John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous ignorance
 and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship that is epidemic on
 the everything list.

  John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians.


 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
 that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

   John K Clark


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A theory of dark matter...


On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and 
 see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me. 
 I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might 
 produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter.

 In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories proposed 
 in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that of John 
 Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems

 Edgar

  
  Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of the 
 rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively increases 
 over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, but 
 compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of decrease 
 of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over increasing 
 distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be to 
 progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the 
 source. 
  
 As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the effect 
 entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and because it 
 progressively intensifies further from the source, and because that means 
 the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail end (because 
 the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, where the rate 
 at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted beyond a 
 certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that actually 
 slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased rate of 
 descrease after a point,  is progressively exacberated by an increased bias 
 for slowing the other side of the point given there is now less tension the 
 other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the other side of the 
 line. 
  
 So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than 
 predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth 
 decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a 
 shorter distance. 
  
 All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the 
 observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser 
 ordinary matter in the galaxy. 
  
 It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly could be 
 checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity solutions. It 
 doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the conjecture part. 
  
 'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be protesting of 
 that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the effort to 
 understand so simple an idea. 

 
 
Second thoughts - don't botherit's not a good idea, nor something I 
personally believe in. I just remembered it thrown out in an earlier 
conversation. Just a little it was demonstration ideas at this sort of 
level are pretty easy to conjure up.because everything about them is so 
easy to vary (to borrow a good idea from Deutsch)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and don't care 
about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we built the pyramids - yeah, 
we just threw human death and suffering at them until they were built. There's no end to 
what we can achieve when we don't give a sh•t how to get there... Science that advances 
by eliminativism comes with a price and some side-effects.


Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it.  We eliminated the 
Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we don't get pyramids anymore - 
and I'd call it progress.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:





On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on 
this planet
once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with 
elan vital.


Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws of carbon
chemistry, and future computers will almost certainly contain carbon 
nanotubes and
2D carbon Graphene sheets. And I have no idea what elan vital is and 
those who
like the term have even less idea than I do, but whatever it is if meat can 
have it
I see no reason why a computer can't have it too. So even by your 
definition a
computer could be alive.


To be sure there was no misunderstanding, I do not seriously subscribe to that 
definition of life. Rather, I was using your own phrasing to show how it can be 
ridiculous it is to hold the meanings of words cannot change and must remain absolutely 
static. For we find that the meanings of many words change and evolve along with our 
understanding of the world.


But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical 
I'd really
like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to 
existence and
if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is 
not
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it 
adds to
clarity to call that principle God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital found within 
organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms life? Asking this question 
illustrates the attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me 
seems little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed 
to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common 
across many religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top 
of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to conclude God 
has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to 
update accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we discovered it 
is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is 
not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with 
something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some thing? 
If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, 
as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new.


But that's a false analogy.  Life was something we could point to, so it makes sense to 
say we discover it does or doesn't have some attribute.  But God, since we stopped 
looking on Olympus, has just been defined by some set of attributes: Creator of the 
universe. Definer of morality.  Your ultimate value.  Love.  Omniscient, omnipotent, and 
omnibenevolent.  The necessary being.  So it makes no sense to ask whether god has an 
attribute.  The attributes are so varied and inconsistent that the word has become 
meaningless.  It's then just a muddle to say, I'm going back to the really real original 
meaning.  The original meaning was one of many superhuman, immortal beings.  To pick 
Plotinus'es meaning, or Kronecker's, is no different than just making up another set of 
attributes and saying they define god.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-01-27 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

  But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or
  whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room
  COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY
  be conscious?
 
 
  NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE
  CONSCIOUS.*
 
  *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. 
 Puppets
  can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be
  conscious.

 Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever sense 
 you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do you 
 think that is impossible?


 Yes, I think that Barack Obama is conscious, because he is different from 
 a building or machine. Buildings and machines cannot be conscious, just as 
 pictures of people drinking pictures of water do no experience relief from 
 thirst.


 To compare a brain with a machine can make sense.
 To compare a brain with a picture cannot.


It depends what the picture is doing. If you have a collection of detailed 
pictures of brains, and you organize them so that they are shown in 
different sequences according to some computation, isn't that a simulation 
of a brain?

In either case, consciousness makes no more sense as part of a brain or a 
machine than a picture. Machines are like 4D pictures. One picture or form 
leads to another and another, and if there were some interpreter they could 
infer a logic to those transitions, but there is nothing in the machine 
which would itself lead from unconsciousness to awareness.

Craig


 Bruno



  


  Or do you claim that the question is meaningless, a
  category error (which ironically is a term beloved of positivists)? If
  the latter, how is it that the question can be meaningfully asked
  about humans but not the Chinese Room?
 
 
  Because humans are not human bodies. We don't have to doubt that humans 
 are
  conscious, as to do so would be to admit that we humans are the ones
  choosing to do the doubting and therefore are a priori certainly 
 conscious.
  Bodies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, since they remain when 
 we
  are personally unconscious or dear. That does not mean, however, that 
 our
  body is not itself composed on lower and lower levels by microphenomenal
  experiences which only seem to us at the macro level to be forms and
  functionsthey are forms and functions relative to our
  perceptual-relativistic distance from their level of description. Since
  there is no distance between our experience and ourselves, we experience
  ourselves in every way that it can be experienced without being outside 
 of
  itself, and are therefore not limited to mathematical descriptions. The 
 sole
  purpose of mathematical descriptions are to generalize measurements - to
  make phenomena distant and quantified.

 Wouldn't the Chinese Room also say the same things, i.e. We Chinese 
 Rooms don't have to doubt that we are
 conscious, as to do so would be to admit that we are the ones
 choosing to do the doubting and therefore are a priori certainly 
 conscious.


 Why would the things a doll says things make any difference? If a puppet 
 moves its mouth and you hear words that seem to be coming out of it, does 
 that mean that the words are true, and that they are the true words of a 
 puppet?
  


   I like my examples better than the Chinese Room, because they are
   simpler:
  
   1. I can type a password based on the keystrokes instead of the 
 letters
   on
   the keys. This way no part of the system needs to know the letters,
   indeed, they could be removed altogether, thereby showing that data
   processing does not require all of the qualia that can be associated
   with
   it, and therefore it follows that data processing does not 
 necessarily
   produce any or all qualia.
  
   2. The functional aspects of playing cards are unrelated to the 
 suits,
   their
   colors, the pictures of the royal cards, and the participation of the
   players. No digital simulation of playing card games requires any
   aesthetic
   qualities to simulate any card game.
  
   3. The difference between a game like chess and a sport like 
 basketball
   is
   that in chess, the game has only to do with the difficulty for the 
 human
   intellect to compute all of the possibilities and prioritize them
   logically.
   Sports have strategy as well, but they differ fundamentally in that 
 the
   real
   challenge of the game is the physical execution of the moves. A 
 machine
   has
   no feeling so it can never participate meaningfully in a sport. It
   doesn't
   get tired or feel pain, it need not attempt to accomplish something 
 that
   it

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
 book is really informative about Einstein's religion.


 Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
 had to say about God:

 it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
 lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
 God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.  If
 something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
 admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal
 it.

 This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non
 personal God.


After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that Einstein
only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one cannot
deduce that he thought you *can *believe in a non-personal God (or god, if
you prefer).

(I would try to formalise this, something like ~p - q =/= p - ~q but my
expertise in meta-self-doubt assures me I'd probably mess it up.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
 physicalist) theology for granted.


 I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever
 lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field.

 Bruno is using Aristotle to mean materialist, since Aristotle was
apparently the person who started physics on the materialism route. So
taking Aristotle for granted just means taking materialism for granted.
If you think Aristotle was a bad physicist, then perhaps you shouldn't do
that (assuming you do).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-01-27 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: 

  Tell me what you believe so we can be clear: 
  
  My understanding is that you believe that if the parts of the Chinese 
  Room don't understand Chinese, then the Chinese Room can't understand 
  Chinese. Have I got this wrong? 
  
  
  The fact that the Chinese Room can't understand Chinese is not related 
 to 
  its parts, but to the category error of the root assumption that forms 
 and 
  functions can understand things.  I see forms and functions as one of 
 the 
  effects of experience, not as a cause of them. 

 But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or 
 whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room 
 COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY 
 be conscious?


 NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO BODY CAN BE CONSCIOUS. NO FORM CAN BE 
 CONSCIOUS.*


 I agree.


 Cool.
  




 *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. Puppets 
 can seem conscious. Doors, door-knobs, and Chinese rooms can SEEM to be 
 conscious.


 You do the Searle error. The fact that the room/body form is not 
 conscious does not entail that the narrative is fictional. If the room 
 simulates the person at its right level, it can manifest the real abstract 
 person related to the narrative.


 That makes perfect sense to me, but it makes more sense that it is a 
 mistake. It assumes the information-theoretic ground of being in which 
 simulation is possible. 


 That is arithmetic. yes we assume things like 0+1=1, etc.


I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from 
the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something 
can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary.
 




 My understanding is that this is not only precisely the opposite of the 
 whole truth, which is that all awareness is grounded in the unprecedented, 
 unrepeatable, and unique, 


 If you know the truth; there is nothing we can do for you.


I'm not asking for anything to be done for me.
 




 but that the inverted assumption of comp is actually incapable of 
 detecting its own error. 



 The point is that it can, but not by introspection. Just by comparing the 
 comp physics and the inferred physics.


Physics is measurement though. Awareness can't be located that way.
 




 This blindness is what is being reflected in its projections of first 
 person machine denial of mechanism. 


 ?
 To be clear, 1p is not denied. It plays indeed the key role in the whole 
 UDA.
 Then the math recover it Through the arithmetical translation of 
 Theaetetus idea, and this is made possible by machine's incompleteness.


That version of 1p is a behaviorist silhouette though. It is a 1p which has 
no function but to pad the 3p math so that the unknown can be taken into 
account. It does not specify the nature of the unknown or link it to 
qualitative awareness.
 




 There is no level of simulation, because simulation itself is a theory 
 which mistakes local sensory approximation for universal 
 interchangeability. 


 Well, that is the comp bet. You just assert non)comp here, without an 
 argument.


There can't be an argument, because the argument has to begin with 
sophistry. We can only argue for comp if we allow ourselves to doubt what 
cannot really be doubted.
 





 It makes the mistake of imposing the specially blunted aesthetics of 
 functionalism onto the aesthetic totality.


 That's no better than Jacques Arsac argument: i am catholic, so i can't 
 believe that a machine will ever think.


It's the argument that makes the most sense, given the assumption that 
sense is primordial and function is derived.
 



  


 With your body or form is a sort of zombie. It does no more think than a 
 car. But the owner of the body can think, and use his body to manifest his 
 thinking (which is really done in platonia) relatively to its most 
 probable continuations in Platonia.


 I think that the owners of my body look like cells to me. I am a 
 contributor to their experience, and other, greater owners of my lifetime 
 likely contribute to my experience. 





  

 Or do you claim that the question is meaningless, a 
 category error (which ironically is a term beloved of positivists)? If 
 the latter, how is it that the question can be meaningfully asked 
 about humans but not the Chinese Room? 


 Because humans are not human bodies. 


 We agree on this. 

 Ok
  


 We don't have to doubt that humans are conscious, as to do so would be to 
 admit that we humans are the ones choosing to do the doubting and therefore 
 are a priori

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist, 
physicalist)
theology for granted.


I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever 
lived, he
certainly caused the most damage to the field.

Bruno is using Aristotle to mean materialist, since Aristotle was apparently the 
person who started physics on the materialism route. So taking Aristotle for granted 
just means taking materialism for granted. If you think Aristotle was a bad physicist, 
then perhaps you shouldn't do that (assuming you do).


Democritus was arguably more materialist than Aristotle.  He argued that everything was 
made of few kinds of atoms and that they moved in random swerves that allowed them to 
collide and interact.  Aristotle argued there were different substances and that they had 
teleological tendencies to be in their proper place.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:49, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

  Dear LizR,
 George Spencer-Brown's Laws of 
 Formhttp://www.lawsofform.org/lof.htmlare the place to start...


  I'll add that to my reading list.


 But on which end?  :-)


 If you add all Stephen's links in the list, you risk a memory overflow.


:-)

I'm starting to appreciate that. Maybe I can just keep a symbolic
representation of them...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from
 the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something
 can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary.

 Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the
three sentences above, so would appreciate a blow by blow explanation if
that's OK).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 28 January 2014 01:21, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Dear Bruno,

   I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see them
 as merely representational

 What do they represent?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 28 January 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:

 Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing
 what life would be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain fools us
 into thinking we have continuous existence. It isn't too much of a stretch
 from imagining living in 5 minute segments to realising that we could
 equally well live in instants, with all of our memory being what's there
 right now, what's available to us in that instant, that pgeonhole. After
 all, logically, given the assumption of locality in physics, that's all
 we'd *expect* to be available.


 There's a play Random by a local playwright, Michael Perlmutter, in
 which a psychiatrist is treating a man who claims that he doesn't live his
 life in order.  He remembers segments of his childhood, but also some
 segments of the future and with gaps in between.  Of course each segment
 has a consistent arrow of time within it.


The man's name isn't Billy Pilgrim, perchance?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 11:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:

  You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
 physicalist) theology for granted.


  I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who
 ever lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field.

   Bruno is using Aristotle to mean materialist, since Aristotle was
 apparently the person who started physics on the materialism route. So
 taking Aristotle for granted just means taking materialism for granted.
 If you think Aristotle was a bad physicist, then perhaps you shouldn't do
 that (assuming you do).

  Democritus was arguably more materialist than Aristotle.  He argued
 that everything was made of few kinds of atoms and that they moved in
 random swerves that allowed them to collide and interact.  Aristotle
 argued there were different substances and that they had teleological
 tendencies to be in their proper place.


Ah yes, he is the originator of atoms and the void, I think? He had atoms
with hooks on that could connect together, iirc, which isn't THAT far from
the truth.

I think using Aristotle may have more to it that just materialism. I
think it's probably a whole outlook, which worked fairly well for 2000
years or so, but some think has now run into trouble (Tegmark for example,
compares Aristotle and Plato, and favours the latter with his mathematical
universe hypothesis.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
 I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
 goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
 existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is
 not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
 God?



 I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital
 found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms
 life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in
 higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind
 of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a
 common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many
 religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top
 of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to
 conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and
 our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out
 the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain
 ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or
 not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something
 else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some
 thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an
 incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew
 words each time we learned something new.

 Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems
ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Hence we *could *say
the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them orbits, since
that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited theory. Similarly, we
don't talk about the aether, but space-time; we don't talk about elan
vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of a few similar examples.

I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question should
be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various things
(matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral term for
the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe. (Assuming most
people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or
maybe Ylem ?)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
 I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
 goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
 existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is
 not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
 God?



 I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital
 found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms
 life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in
 higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind
 of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a
 common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many
 religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top
 of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to
 conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and
 our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out
 the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain
 ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or
 not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something
 else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some
 thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an
 incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew
 words each time we learned something new.

 Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems
ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Hence we *could *say
the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them orbits, since
that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited theory. Similarly, we
don't talk about the aether, but space-time; we don't talk about elan
vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of a few similar examples.

I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question should
be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various things
(matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral term for
the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe. (Assuming most
people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or
maybe Ylem ?)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Modal Logic (Part 1: Leibniz)

On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:

 On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that p is
 true in at least one world.

 You need just use a conditional (if). The word asked was if.

 OK?


 OK. I think I see. p becomes if p is true rather than p is true

 Yes.

 Rereading a previews post I ask myself if this is well understood.


 I have tended to work on the basis that 'p' means 'p is true'

 That is correct.

 - to make it easier to get my head around what an expression like []p -
 p means.

 ?

 p - q means: if p is true then q is true. (or means, equivalently 'p is
 false or q is true')

 In fact p - q is a sort of negation of p. It means p if false (unless
 q is true).


OK, I think I misunderstood something you said which made me think I'd
previously misunderstood ... but actually I hadn't. I got it right the
first time.

 I realise it could also mean if p is false in all worlds, that implies it
 is false in this one

 Here you talk like if   p - q   implies ~p - ~q.

 But p - q is equivalent with ~q - ~p, not with ~p - ~q

 Socrates is human - Socrates is mortal does not imply Socrates is not
 human - Socrates is not mortal.  Socrates could be my dog, for example.

 But Socrates is human - Socrates is mortal does imply Socrates is not
 mortal - Socrates is not human

 Keep in mind that p - q is ~p V q. Then (if you see that ~~p = p, and
 that p V q = q V p).

 ~p - ~q  = ~~p v ~q = p V ~q = ~q V p = q - p.  (not p - q).  OK?


Yes.

 You said that we cannot infer anything from Alicia song as we don't know
 if his theory/song  is true.
 But the whole point of logic is in the art of deriving and reasoning
 without ever knowing if a premise is true or not. Indeed, we even want to
 reason independetly of any interpretation (of the atoical propositions).


 Yes, I do appreciate that is the point. I was a bit thrown by the word
 usage with Alicia, if A is singing...everybody loves my baby...can we
 deduce... I mean, I often sing all sorts of things that I don't intend to
 be self-referential (e.g. I am the Walrus) so I felt the need to add a
 little caveat.

 OK.

 Let me try to be clear.

 From the truth of  Everybody loves my baby  my baby loves nobody but me
 you have deduced correctly  the proposition everybody loves me.  (with me
 = Alicia, and, strangely enough, = the baby).

 From the truth of Alicia song Everybody loves my baby  my baby loves
 nobody  ,  we can only deduce that everybody loves Alicia or Alicia is
 not correct. In that last case either someone does not love the baby, or
 the baby does not love only her, maybe the baby loves someone else,
 secretly.


OK.

 That error is done by those who believe that I defend the truth of comp,
 which I never do.
 In fact we never know if a theory is true (cf Popper). That is why we do
 theories. We can prove A - B, without having any clues if A is false (in
 which case A - B is trivial), or A is true.
 I will come back on this. It is crucially important.


 I agree. I think psychologically it's hard to derive the results from a
 theory mechanically, without at least having some idea that it could be
 true. But obviously one can, as with Alicia.

 You are right. Most of the time, mathematicians are aware of what they
 want to prove. They work topdown, using their intuition and familiarity
 with the subject. To be sure, very often too, they will prove a different
 theorem than the one they were thinking about. In some case they can even
 prove the contrary, more or less like Gödel for his 1931 result. He thought
 he could prove the consistency of the Hilbert program, but the math reality
 kicked back.


Ooh, really?! Well that really IS maths kicking back big time. I must
remember that as an example of how maths really can kick back unexpectedly.


 Nevertheless, the level of rigor in math today is such that in the paper,
 you will have to present the proof in a way showing that anyone could
 extract a formal proof of it, whose validity can be checked mechanically in
 either directly in predicate first order calculus, or in a theory which
 admits a known description in first order predicate calculus, like ZF,
 category theory.

 All physical theories admits such description (like classical physics,
 quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc.).


Yes you need what I would call a formal theory, or whatever I should call
it.


 Actually those theories does not even climb very high on the ordinal
 vertical ladder (of set theory).


???


 So, the concrete rational talk between scientists consists in proofs
 amenable to the formal notion of proofs, which is indeed only a sequence of
 formula obtained by the iteration of the modus ponens rule.
 technically, some proofs in analysis can be obtained or analysed in term
 of iterating that rule in the constructive transfinite, but this will be
 for another

Re: Church thesis = non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 1/27/2014 2:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 09:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:

Watching Memento gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing
what life
would be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain fools us into
thinking we
have continuous existence. It isn't too much of a stretch from imagining
living in
5 minute segments to realising that we could equally well live in instants,
with
all of our memory being what's there right now, what's available to us in
that
instant, that pgeonhole. After all, logically, given the assumption of
locality in
physics, that's all we'd /expect/ to be available.

There's a play Random by a local playwright, Michael Perlmutter, in which
a
psychiatrist is treating a man who claims that he doesn't live his life in order.
He remembers segments of his childhood, but also some segments of the future and

with gaps in between. Of course each segment has a consistent arrow of
time within it.

The man's name isn't Billy Pilgrim, perchance?

Nope. And I don't believe the play's been performed other than the local run. Perlmutter
is shopping it around.

Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Liz,

One point not really correct. Penzias and Wilson had no idea what they had 
discovered until someone told them. They were pretty much routine engineers 
not first caliber physicists...

Edgar



On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:51:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.com javascript:
  wrote:

 2014-01-27 LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:

 On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:


 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the 
 very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark 
 Matter 
 or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that.


 Dark matter was discovered in 1932; and Einstein did at least predict 
 one form of dark energy. One thing of major significance that hasn't been 
 discovered was the Big Bang, 


 That's not true, it was discovered by Georges Lemaître in 1931... but the 
 name came from Hoyle later...

 The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s (I think?) and 
 a primordial explosion was *theorised* by Lemaitre, but until the 
 discovery of the microwave background in the '60s that was only one of 
 several competing theories put forward to explain the cosmic expansion. The 
 CMB radiation (more or less) clinched it for the Big Bang, since no other 
 theory predicted that. (Although I believe Fred Hoyle tried to explain it 
 with some mechanism compatible with the Steady State, but it was too ad hoc 
 to be convincing to anyone else.)

 What I meant was that the Big Bang *as the only viable explanation for 
 the cosmic expansion* was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in the '60s. 
 Sorry, I should have been more precise.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,

Please at least keep the record straight instead of making snide comments 
about me.

I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside 
the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing 
can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?

Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears 
completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and 
that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping 
from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a 
pretty crazy idea. Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space warping 
behind in any other circumstances. 

My answer, that no one including you got, is that it is the gravitational 
field of the mass inside the BH that creates the event horizon in the first 
place so gravitational effect of the mass inside the BH is already 'out' by 
the time the event horizon is created and there is no problem emerging from 
the event horizon since the gravitational field is what creates it in the 
first place. 

So don't try to change history by snidely implying I got it wrong and you 
got it right when the opposite is true 

You claim that BH's don't even have any mass and the curved space outside 
the event horizon is residual warping with nothing to sustain it which is 
incorrect. i provide the obvious answer of how the actual mass inside a 
black hole produces and sustains the actual gravitational field outside the 
event horizon.

Edgar



On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:56:56 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

   On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

  On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  
 I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
 God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be 
 responsible for my or our existence.

  Sounds like physics to me.
  

  If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting their time 
 trying to find a TOE.
   
  Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend.  Bruno's 
 fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that matter is fundamental 
 but don't define it.  Of course they might say, It's whatever we find to 
 be fundamental...and we're calling it doG.
  
  Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's using 
 it, but generally I'd take it to be something like beyond our 
 understanding, hence my (tongue in cheek) comment.

  I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if 
 physicist decided that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that they 
 should just shut up and calculate from now on.
   

 Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.  If you calculate 
 stuff accurately and predict stuff that surprising, people will think 
 you've explained it.
  

  By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just dismiss 
 the hard problem.

  Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that 
 physicalism is wrong. net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not only 
 for consciousness, but also for the origin of matter.

  Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here.
  

 That's the main point.  Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it 
 has explained gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species 
 and lots of other stuff.  But what it has done is show their relations and 
 made accurate predictions AND *eliminated* the things people asked to be 
 explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed the planets around. Darwin 
 didn't explain how animals adapted.  Maxwell didn't explain the 
 luminiferous ether. Just like we can't explain to Edgar how gravity gets 
 out of a black hole.  Science advances a lot by eliminativism.

 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Kevin Knuth's emergent spacetime

2014-01-27 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi Folks,

  Check out this paper by Kevin Knuth. In it he shows how one can obtain
space-time (and its Lorentz symmetry in the limit) from interactions
between observers and some basic relational algebra.

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Knuth_fqxi13knuthessayfinal.pdf

  This is, IMHO, a nice alternative to the block universe concept.

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Kevin Knuth's emergent spacetime

Very interesting, and (like spin foams and CDT and LQG) a possible way to
get to emergent space-time from something more basic.

But why do you say it's an alternative to the block universe? I didn't see
anything in there to suggest that.


On 28 January 2014 13:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Hi Folks,

   Check out this paper by Kevin Knuth. In it he shows how one can obtain
 space-time (and its Lorentz symmetry in the limit) from interactions
 between observers and some basic relational algebra.

 http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Knuth_fqxi13knuthessayfinal.pdf

   This is, IMHO, a nice alternative to the block universe concept.

 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
don't care
about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we built the
pyramids -
yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them until they were built.
There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't give a sh•t how to get
there... Science that advances by eliminativism comes with a price and some
side-effects.

Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it. We
eliminated the
Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we don't get
pyramids
anymore - and I'd call it progress.

Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: Wow, look at all this amazing
customized digital technology we have, waving around an iphone, that's because where
they build these things, people are so miserable they have to deploy nets outside the
factories to keep them from jumping off the effin roofs...

There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area. Given the numbers I
don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere. Universities in the U.S. also have
high suicide rate.

/At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed suicides this
academic year, including two on successive days last month. Last week, Cornell installed
chain-link fencing along many of the bridges that cross the gorges on campus, serving both
as deterrent and a physical reminder.//

//
//According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of participating
undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in four-year colleges said they had
“seriously considered attempting suicide” in the past year—and nearly half of each group
did not tell anyone.///

so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a sh•t.

Sure, it's comedy.

But it's not trivial in proclaiming civilization has not made the progress promised by
Science, liberalized from theology. I guess people think less about such problems as
good and evil, fundamental science, philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially
richer for it, and technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive
about the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use technology for
savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to envision more appropriate
beliefs in such complex contexts.

Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne bit,
fundamentally laying aside what with belief implication) with what's left, our default
opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no surprise why many argue this
way: it's simpler and clearer.

Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense. Children with access
to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto this. PGC

The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the Spartans and
Alexander the Great as well as Plato.

Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Please at least keep the record straight instead of making snide comments about 
me.

I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect outside the event 
horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and nothing can go faster than the 
speed of light to come out of a black hole?


Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears completely into 
the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and that the gravitational 
effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping from the passage of the mass before it 
enters the BH which seems like a pretty crazy idea. Passing mass doesn't leave trails of 
its space warping behind in any other circumstances.


But it's not passing it's being crushed into the singularity.



My answer, that no one including you got, is that it is the gravitational field of the 
mass inside the BH that creates the event horizon in the first place so gravitational 
effect of the mass inside the BH is already 'out' by the time the event horizon is 
created and there is no problem emerging from the event horizon since the gravitational 
field is what creates it in the first place.


Which I also pointed is why a planet orbiting a star which then collapsed into a BH would 
not experience any gravitational difference at its orbit.  Jesse also gave a similar 
explanation noting that the field at any point can only depend on things inside its past 
light cone which means that the field at any point outside the event horizon can only 
depend stuff outside the event horizon.




So don't try to change history by snidely implying I got it wrong and you got it right 
when the opposite is true


You claim that BH's don't even have any mass and the curved space outside the event 
horizon is residual warping with nothing to sustain it which is incorrect. i provide the 
obvious answer of how the actual mass inside a black hole produces and sustains the 
actual gravitational field outside the event horizon.


It's not just me.  Look up the Schwarzchild metric anywhere.  You'll see that the matter 
term is zero.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 14:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
 don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we
 built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them
 until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't
 give a sh•t how to get there... Science that advances by eliminativism
 comes with a price and some side-effects.


 Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it.  We
 eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we
 don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress.


  Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: Wow, look at
 all this amazing customized digital technology we have, waving around an
 iphone, that's because where they build these things, people are so
 miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from
 jumping off the effin roofs...


 There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area.  Given
 the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere.
 Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate.


It's below the national average if Wikipedia is to be believed. (I'm sure
they are all happy communists, with the means of production controlled by
the proletariat...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-27 Thread Jason Resch




On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't  
rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all  
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown  
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not  
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you  
think it adds to clarity to call that principle God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan  
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those  
organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of  
holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems  
little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are  
also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind  
the word God, which is common across many religions, though each  
religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond  
what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to  
conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress,  
and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not  
throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter  
arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine  
God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that  
word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time  
we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me  
that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as  
scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we  
learned something new.


Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems  
ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage?


Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite,  
transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or  
for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun?


We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I  
would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence  
of many theories, including most of the everything type theories  
popular on this list.


Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to  
call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a  
discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but  
space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you  
can think of a few similar examples.


Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as  
the Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations (theories)  
of that which is responsible for our existance.


Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be  
explained persists.





I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question  
should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of  
various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a  
relatively neutral term for the (possibly unknowable) principle  
behind the universe.


Any suggestions?

(Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we  
could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?)


I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I  
think god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any  
particular religion.


Jason




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
 outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and
 nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?

  Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears
 completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and
 that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping
 from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a
 pretty crazy idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space
 warping behind in any other circumstances.*

 I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would
leave behind a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone
somewhere else.

Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused
 it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is
 why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other
 all the time.
 Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original
 galactic mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can
 go anywhere it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter
 can...


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect
 outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and
 nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole?

  Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears
 completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and
 that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping
 from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a
 pretty crazy idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space
 warping behind in any other circumstances.*

 I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would
leave behind a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone
somewhere else.

*Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused
 it.* At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is
 why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other
 all the time.

 Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original
 galactic mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can
 go anywhere it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter
 can...


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis