Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Brent Meeker]

That which can explain anything fails to explain at all.

Brent

On 8/15/2022 8:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Thank you for that. I have yet to find an idea that can explain more 
while assuming less (in this case only assuming that 2+2=4, and the 
rest can be shown constructively).


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/78238eed-a22a-ed3d-41c4-e338bb734fb6%40gmail.com.

Re: Believe it or not?

[Alan Grayson]

Brent; I have no idea what you mean. AG

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 2:38:44 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> That's not my prior.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 8/15/2022 12:20 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we have to 
> assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth. Is there any 
> "scientist" here willing to go that far? AG
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:45:43 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0INH_DI1M
>>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5cf40055-08b7-49a4-9951-1da95444bdfan%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ec1c9d9-4e12-49ca-b3fc-8bdae016e6can%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/15/2022 8:23 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
 wrote:


>> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make
sure that the man you have just convicted of murder does not
murder again. Take for example the case of Kenneth McDuff, he
was convicted of the rape torture and murder of 3 children in
1966 and sentenced to death, but it was later commuted to life
in prison. Despite the life sentence he was released from
prison in 1989 due to overcrowding. As a free man over the
next 3 years McDuff tortured at least 5 more children to death
before he was caught. In 1998 he was finally executed, he
never killed anybody after that and I think we can be pretty
sure he never will.


/> Removing a hazard, if that’s how you want to look at the legal
system, does not require any consideration of the criteria for
free will, but deterring people from breaking legal or moral rules
does./



Punishment is a factor in the environment and the fear of that is 
oftensufficient to stop somebody from murdering.


By an exercise of their will.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09066bef-1e6a-ce19-68fa-9ddcac9c4768%40gmail.com.

Re: Believe it or not?

[Brent Meeker]

That's not my prior.

Brent

On 8/15/2022 12:20 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we 
have to assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth. Is there 
any "scientist" here willing to go that far? AG


On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:45:43 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0INH_DI1M

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5cf40055-08b7-49a4-9951-1da95444bdfan%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bc86c332-d46a-c2c8-e617-eeb98fc16fae%40gmail.com.

Re: Believe it or not?a

[Alan Grayson]

That's not what I said. Rather, I said that without additional knowledge, 
one has to give the claim a 50% probability of being true  (or false). The 
only evidence you have is your bias articulated in venomous counter-claims. 
Mark my words; on the UFO issue, I will eventually be proven correct. AG

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> You keep being a total schmuck and have no self-knowledge about your 
> behavior. I didn't claim 50% *proves* anything, except possibly that some 
> claims deserve more than mockery, particularly from someone who claims to 
> be an objective analyst of possible realities. AG
>
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 12:30:05 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:20 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we 
>>> have to assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth.*
>>
>>
>> So you think if you can't prove or disprove something you should give it 
>> a 50% chance of being correct . Congratulations Mr. Grayson, you have 
>> just said what is probably the stupidest thing ever uttered on this list, 
>> and that is saying something! But I would expect nothing less from a 
>> certified UFO nut and tinfoil hat wearing Alex Jones apologist. 
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> tfh
>>
>>  
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce3ad1cc-5cc6-4bb2-a430-b5e7d2102bc3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Believe it or not?

[Alan Grayson]

You keep being a total schmuck and have no self-knowledge about your 
behavior. I didn't claim 50% *proves* anything, except possibly that some 
claims deserve more than mockery, particularly from someone who claims to 
be an objective analyst of possible realities. AG

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 12:30:05 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:20 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we have 
>> to assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth.*
>
>
> So you think if you can't prove or disprove something you should give it a 
> 50% chance of being correct . Congratulations Mr. Grayson, you have just 
> said what is probably the stupidest thing ever uttered on this list, and 
> that is saying something! But I would expect nothing less from a certified 
> UFO nut and tinfoil hat wearing Alex Jones apologist. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> tfh
>
>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4d219ddc-e90c-4bb0-a18b-9963c20f7a45n%40googlegroups.com.

RE: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
   Very rarely I will again any response!!
   If there nothing never existed, never ever anything will exist anywhere. 
This is the ‘rational’ question of aseity and the inevitable necessity of  
infinite regress. What is more rational ? Aseity of ‘dead matter’ that create 
life? Or aseity of LIFE with creating both dead matter and life forms?
  Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles expounded the aseity of Adonai 
(plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (plural). A corollary from Genesis is the 
Sabbath—the seventh day and the seven days of the week which has no rhyme or 
reason in any astronomy or solar, lunar, planetary equations. The Western 
academia (WAMP-the-Ingrate) arbitrarily accepted the Scriptural
 Sabbath and Sabbatical. The compelling addition of the first day also was 
because of the 100% Jewish earliest Church (“multitudes”) on Acts 17: 17-24, 
that witnessed the earth rending Resurrection on the First Day.
 Empiricism counts!
Philip Benjamin

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
everything-list@googlegroups.com On 
Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 4:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics 
Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 21:53, John Clark 
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve identically, 
> as would any supervening mental states.

Yes.

 > However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different 
 > physical states can give rise to the same mental state.

True, and in that situation things would not be reversible; a cellular 
automation like Conway's LIFE is not reversible and for the same reason. 
Something can be 100% deterministic in the forward time dimension but not in 
the backward time dimension, but so far at least nobody has any experimental 
evidence that fundamental physics has that property, fundamental physics can't 
explain why you can't unscramble an egg, you need more than the laws of physics 
to explain that you need to invoke initial conditions. That situation could 
change if some of Stephen Wolfram's ideas turn out to be correct, but so far 
there is no evidence that they are.

 > The different physical states may then evolve differently giving different 
 > subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this would mean that your next 
 > mental state is undetermined.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB52641FD8540F43E1E768F053A8689%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 01:23, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> >> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make sure that
>>> the man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again. Take for
>>> example the case of Kenneth McDuff, he was convicted of the rape torture
>>> and murder of 3 children in 1966 and sentenced to death, but it was later
>>> commuted to life in prison. Despite the life sentence he was released from
>>> prison in 1989 due to overcrowding. As a free man over the next 3 years
>>> McDuff tortured at least 5 more children to death before he was caught. In
>>> 1998 he was finally executed, he never killed anybody after that and I
>>> think we can be pretty sure he never will.
>>>
>>
>> *> Removing a hazard, if that’s how you want to look at the legal system,
>> does not require any consideration of the criteria for free will, but
>> deterring people from breaking legal or moral rules does.*
>>
>
>
> Punishment is a factor in the environment and the fear of that is often
> sufficient to stop somebody from murdering.
>

But only if they have control over their actions, which is where the
compatibilist definition of free will comes into it.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXS3pvq9Y0GEcn6m38XYuVoEP1DuxvUG0_UFoicEVZ68Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Believe it or not?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:20 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we have
> to assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth.*


So you think if you can't prove or disprove something you should give it a
50% chance of being correct . Congratulations Mr. Grayson, you have just
said what is probably the stupidest thing ever uttered on this list, and
that is saying something! But I would expect nothing less from a certified
UFO nut and tinfoil hat wearing Alex Jones apologist.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tfh

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Pm2otRPZC4-GopO-%3Dah5X_hPeW6xL19FHvt4V22F_8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Jason Resch]

Read the rest and maybe it will make sense.

Jason

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022, 2:16 PM John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> There are many dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milkyway, and hence also
>> orbiting Uranus. Perhaps there is intelligent life in one of these dwarf
>> galaxies which makes teapots.*
>>
>
> What the hell?!
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> tjs
>
>
>
>> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2x%2BnR_8bN%2BckOEJ1opCOBuK%3D9xq-J3eY%3DbfgJbWKrn-w%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUh_BwrXa%2BXziJCDm9KwyX5fStZhKMSVvYRhp%2B%3DVrxswWg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> There are many dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milkyway, and hence also
> orbiting Uranus. Perhaps there is intelligent life in one of these dwarf
> galaxies which makes teapots.*
>

What the hell?!
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tjs



>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2x%2BnR_8bN%2BckOEJ1opCOBuK%3D9xq-J3eY%3DbfgJbWKrn-w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Believe it or not?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 2:20 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we have to
> assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth. Is there any
> "scientist" here willing to go that far? AG
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:45:43 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0INH_DI1M
>>
>
>
For any binary claim without evidence either way, I think it is reasonable
to assign a "prior probability
"
to 50% when doing Bayesian inference.

Though I am not sure this case would be simply: he's lying vs. he's telling
the truth. You might also have to consider possibilities such as, he is
telling the truth but he is misremembering, or was purposely deceived about
the true nature of the events, etc.

As one then factors in additional evidence to update the probability
estimation, other hypotheses should converge towards 0% while one converges
towards 100%. However, with a lack of evidence to add and update our
probability estimation, we are stuck with something like 50/50, or
25/25/25/25, without a way to progress any further.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiioG94CBio%3D88Vx7NjThhjZpnu4DNG0fFwh4RVwSzqqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:45 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:07 AM Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
>>
>>
>
> *> I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I
>> bought his book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out, which is also
>> beautiful and inspiring.*
>>
>
> Me too, that book is on my bookshelf only about 10 feet away from me right
> now.
>
> *> We are physical beings existing within the laws of physics. It could be
>> that there is a larger computational reality, and that our universe and the
>> laws of physics are "local" to the "sector" of the computation that we
>> inhabit. We are experiencing this computational reality from the inside.*
>>
>
> Yes we could be part of a computer simulation, but the computer simulating
> us must be operating according to physical law, unless it is also a
> simulation. But unless it's turtles all the way down eventually you're
> going to hit the bedrock of physical reality.
>
> *> The tricky thing, that Jason expanded on better than me, is that the
>> outcomes of computations preexist,*
>>
>
> The trouble is if all correct computations exist in some sort of platonic
> heaven then all incorrect computations exist there too, you need physics
> to tell the difference. If you have 2 rocks and then find 3 more you can
> make a one to one correspondence between the rocks and the fingers of your
> hand, but if you have 2 rocks and only find 2 more you cannot.
>
> *> in the sense that the outcome will be the same independently of how,
>> when or where the computation is performed. We might need a physical
>> computer to find out that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050, but it was already and
>> it always has been and will be the case that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050 (by
>> definition of the natural numbers and multiplication).*
>>
>
> But you needed a physical computer or a physical brain to figure that out.
> If platonic heaven contains everything that is true it also contains
> everything that is false, and there are many more false things than true
> things (that's why science is so difficult) so platonic Heaven is a pretty
> uninteresting place because it is so dense with things that are untrue.
>

If you read the recent wirings by Wolfram on the Ruliad which I have linked
at the start of this thread, he explains how rather than break down into
complete nonsense from all the possible computations, we can expect
observers to see regularities which leads to a unique system of "laws of
physics" as seen by each observer in the Ruliad.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhzoecU-g5X2vf6K0wKxj2WZUrTPcJp7cTXvFyFVYjzMw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 6:47 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 3:02 PM Joel Dietz  wrote:
>
> >> And if it "*is basically unprovable by definition*" so you can't prove
>>> or disprove it then it's silly and is an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>>>
>>
>
>
>> *> Then by your definition your idea that 'there is not a teapot in orbit
>> around the planet Uranus' is 'an idea so bad it's not even wrong'*
>>
>
There are many dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milkyway, and hence also
orbiting Uranus. Perhaps there is intelligent life in one of these dwarf
galaxies which makes teapots.

What makes any idea seem silly or not is a matter of its compatibility with
one's unstated, but working theories and assumptions about reality. We
assume (generally) teapots only exist on Earth (no where else in the
universe), we assume there are no naturally forming teapots (or anything
meeting such a definition), we assume our history of space launches is
accurate and complete and no secret missions by NASA, Russia, China, or
Space-X have put a teapot in orbit of any other plant besides Earth, we
assume humanity is the first and only intelligent civilization to arise on
Earth, we assume no alien intelligences have visited our solar system who
consume tea from pots, and never in history has any colony or ship with
teapots landed on any moon of any planet besides Earth, that in no branch
of the wave function atoms spontaneously arrange to form a teapot in orbit
of another planet, and so on.

Are all of these assumptions and theories valid? I think all could be
questioned by an appropriately inquisitive mind.

If you want to make progress in science, state what your theories and
assumptions are, and try to disprove them. As time goes on the theories and
assumptions which fail to be disproven you can put more confidence in.
Arguing about which ideas are silly or not without first stating and
agreeing on the operating assumptions is itself silly.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjR6mSr8ABRbUbV4Aa0Y3ba5A3%3Do0QnF%2BFOPPoq55k9qQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:51 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 19:56, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started
> going in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs
> are perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be
> conceived of. Almost everything else can be seen as a special case of
> hypergraphs. Like you say, with the update rules, we shouldn't be surprised
> if they are equivalent to the UD. My scepticism is this: is anything being
> gained in terms of explanatory power? Should we be surprised that such a
> powerful representation can contain the rules of our reality? I do admit
> that I have to study these ideas in more detail, and there is something
> really compelling about hypergraphs + update rules.
>
>
> That is a good question. I am not familiar with them myself, but my
> understanding is they do not provide for any form of computation beyond
> what is turing computable, so in that sense, I don't know that they provide
> any additional explanatory power beyond the simple statement that all
> computations exist.
>
> A commenter on my site recently asked, what can we say about the
> "computer" that computes all these computations. My reply was:
>
>
> "There is no single one. There are infinite varieties of different TMs,
> and all can exist Platonically/Arithmetically. Gregory Chaitin discovered
> an equation whose structure models LISP computers. There are likewise other
> equations corresponding to the Java Virtual Machine, and the Commodore 64.
>
>
> This is really interesting, I didn't know about that! Can you provide some
> references?
>


Sure.

In his 1987 book Algorithmic Information Theory
, Gregory Chaitin
 describes one such
equation: the “*Exponential Diophantine Equation Computer*.” It has 20,000
variables and is two hundred pages long.

This equation perfectly replicates the behavior of the LISP programming
language . He
describes the equation as follows:

If the LISP expression
 k has no
value, then this equation will have no solution. If the LISP expression k has
a value, then this equation will have exactly one solution. In this unique
solution, n = the value of the expression k.
Gregory Chaitin  in “*META
MATH! The Quest for Omega *” (2004)



>
> All these Turing machines, and their execution traces of every computer
> program they can run, exist in math in the same sense that the Mandelbrot
> set or the decimal expansion of Pi exist in math. Despite the infinite
> variety of architectures for different Turing machines, their equivalence
> (in the Turing computability sense) makes the question of “Which Turing
> machine is running this universe?” impossible to answer, beyond saying,
> “all of them are.”"
>
>
> I agree.
>


Nice.



>
> I think hypergraphs, then, would be just one more mathematical object we
> could add to the heap of Turing universal mathematical objects which could
> (and would, if Platonism is correct) underlie the computations of our
> universe/experiences.
>
>
>
>
> "As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will
> immediately ask “On what computer?” But a key intellectual point is that
> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly,
> without reference to anything like a physical computer. "
>
>
> My same reply also provided an explanation/argument, which is applicable
> to anyone who accepts simple truths concerning abstract objects have
> definite and objective true/false values, paired with a rejection of
> philosophical zombies. I think John rejects zombies, so he would have to
> reject objective truth to believe a physical computer is necessary to
> produce observers. Below is what I wrote:
>
> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
> be true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>
>
> For if the truth values of certain simple relations have an independent
> existence, then so to do the truth values of far more complex equations.
> Let’s call the Diophantine equation that computes the Wave Function of the
> Hubble Volume of our universe “Equation X”. Now then, it becomes a question
> of pure arithmetic, whether it is true or false that:
>
>
> “In Equation X, does the universal state variable U, at time step T
> contain a pattern of electrons that encode to the string:
> ‘why does the existence of Universal 

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:48 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>> before you start worrying about deterrence you should make sure that the
>> man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again. Take for
>> example the case of Kenneth McDuff, he was convicted of the rape torture
>> and murder of 3 children in 1966 and sentenced to death, but it was later
>> commuted to life in prison. Despite the life sentence he was released from
>> prison in 1989 due to overcrowding. As a free man over the next 3 years
>> McDuff tortured at least 5 more children to death before he was caught. In
>> 1998 he was finally executed, he never killed anybody after that and I
>> think we can be pretty sure he never will.
>>
>
> *> Removing a hazard, if that’s how you want to look at the legal system,
> does not require any consideration of the criteria for free will, but
> deterring people from breaking legal or moral rules does.*
>


Punishment is a factor in the environment and the fear of that is often
sufficient to stop somebody from murdering.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mzy

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2gDzFG-kM4qzAfjLF29NvS9D2fy6X5L3Tb%2BqBeS_zUDw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 22:12, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 2:40 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> * > If it's a matter of bad genes or cosmic rays that's not something that
>> can enter into informing the calculation to commit murder so there's no
>> point in making an example of those murderers.*
>>
>
> But as I said, before you start worrying about deterrence you should make
> sure that the man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again.
> Take for example the case of Kenneth McDuff, he was convicted of the rape
> torture and murder of 3 children in 1966 and sentenced to death, but it was
> later commuted to life in prison. Despite the life sentence he was released
> from prison in 1989 due to overcrowding. As a free man over the next 3
> years McDuff tortured at least 5 more children to death before he was
> caught. In 1998 he was finally executed, he never killed anybody after that
> and I think we can be pretty sure he never will.
>

Removing a hazard, if that’s how you want to look at the legal system, does
not require any consideration of the criteria for free will, but deterring
people from breaking legal or moral rules does.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypU9wDiAY-970P6SEs4z0StN551%2BhjDwgMsZEhp9WZMvuA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:11 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

*> I agree with your premises but not with your conclusions. I agree that:*
>
> *- I am conscious.*
> *- There is overwhelming evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution.*
>

OK.

> >
> *I disagree that:*
>
> *- Natural selection "invented" consciousness.*
>
> *Maybe stars are conscious. Why not? How do you know?*
>

I "know" that stars, rocks and rotting corpses are not conscious in the
same way that I "know" that I'm not the only conscious being in the
universe, some things behave intelligently and some things do not,  stars,
rocks and rotting corpses do not. Like me, Evolution is interested in
intelligent behavior, not so much with consciousness.

>
>> If you could have intelligent behavior without consciousness then
>> natural selection could never have invented it.
>>
>
>
> *> Why? Some people are born without legs. Does that means that natural
> selection could not have invented legs?*
>

Some people are born with a mutation that causes them to have no legs
because, although the genetic code is very good, it is not perfect, and
sometimes it makes a mistake; but such a mutation would not confer a
survival advantage in the current environment and therefore would be
unlikely to be passed onto the next generation. If the Turing Test, which
is basically just a test for intelligent behavior, did not work for
consciousness and there was no connection between the two things then even
if a person accidentally acquired consciousness because of a mutation that
consciousness gene would soon go extinct in the genepool because it would
confer no survival advantage; that's why species of animals that have lived
in pitch dark caves for thousands or millions of years have no eyes, eyes
would convey no survival advantage and would even be a disadvantage because
it would waste valuable resources on something useless, an animal that had
a mutation for no eyes would have an advantage over its fellow creatures in
the cave environment and the gene for no eyes would become dominant in the
genepool.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

2ct
i

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1PUwjFh0UbqT%2B6tyttPhdbqwiKxDJV-ryWrurnirRFFw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 7:07 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
>
>

*> I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I
> bought his book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out, which is also
> beautiful and inspiring.*
>

Me too, that book is on my bookshelf only about 10 feet away from me right
now.

*> We are physical beings existing within the laws of physics. It could be
> that there is a larger computational reality, and that our universe and the
> laws of physics are "local" to the "sector" of the computation that we
> inhabit. We are experiencing this computational reality from the inside.*
>

Yes we could be part of a computer simulation, but the computer simulating
us must be operating according to physical law, unless it is also a
simulation. But unless it's turtles all the way down eventually you're
going to hit the bedrock of physical reality.

*> The tricky thing, that Jason expanded on better than me, is that the
> outcomes of computations preexist,*
>

The trouble is if all correct computations exist in some sort of platonic
heaven then all incorrect computations exist there too, you need physics to
tell the difference. If you have 2 rocks and then find 3 more you can make
a one to one correspondence between the rocks and the fingers of your hand,
but if you have 2 rocks and only find 2 more you cannot.

*> in the sense that the outcome will be the same independently of how,
> when or where the computation is performed. We might need a physical
> computer to find out that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050, but it was already and
> it always has been and will be the case that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050 (by
> definition of the natural numbers and multiplication).*
>

But you needed a physical computer or a physical brain to figure that out.
If platonic heaven contains everything that is true it also contains
everything that is false, and there are many more false things than true
things (that's why science is so difficult) so platonic Heaven is a pretty
uninteresting place because it is so dense with things that are untrue.

Meaning needs contrast. Michelangelo's David was carved from a single huge
block of marble that was a 100 million years old, but it would be silly to
say David was 100 million years old and Michelangelo did nothing but unpack
it from the marble that was not part of David. And to make a real
calculation rather than a pretend toy one you have to differentiate the
correct from the incorrect, you not only have to mention the correct answer
you have to make it clear that all the other answers, and there are an
infinite number of them, are wrong. And for that you need a physical
machine.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


wpr


>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv16pTwqNRGuTFJ%2B12_QKFcKR__Yw-P9mDD0S4sAwMudNA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 2:40 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > If it's a matter of bad genes or cosmic rays that's not something that
> can enter into informing the calculation to commit murder so there's no
> point in making an example of those murderers.*
>

But as I said, before you start worrying about deterrence you should make
sure that the man you have just convicted of murder does not murder again.
Take for example the case of Kenneth McDuff, he was convicted of the rape
torture and murder of 3 children in 1966 and sentenced to death, but it was
later commuted to life in prison. Despite the life sentence he was released
from prison in 1989 due to overcrowding. As a free man over the next 3
years McDuff tortured at least 5 more children to death before he was
caught. In 1998 he was finally executed, he never killed anybody after that
and I think we can be pretty sure he never will.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

kmd

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2WV5nPHEA6wYwhiFf27%2BnrThS0N9qEqWRX%3D%3Dh7YUAUJg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[John Clark]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 3:02 PM Joel Dietz  wrote:

>> And if it "*is basically unprovable by definition*" so you can't prove
>> or disprove it then it's silly and is an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>>
>


> *> Then by your definition your idea that 'there is not a teapot in orbit
> around the planet Uranus' is 'an idea so bad it's not even wrong'*
>

Yes, such a theory would be not necessarily wrong but certainly silly.  It
would be as silly as your theory that "*it is *impossible* to prove that
there is not another as of yet invisible or unmeasurable mechanism within
the construct that can alter or override the standard system of inputs and
outputs* [of the brain]."

And by the way, even if that theory turned out to be true it wouldn't alter
the fact that you either did what you did for a reason and thus are a
cuckoo clock or you did what you did for no reason and thus are a roulette
wheel. And "free will", whatever the hell it's supposed to mean, would
still not be entering the picture.


> *> The rest of us live in a world of reasonable assumptions*
>

And you think a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus is a reasonable
assumption? You think it wise to take time to consider it when we could've
used that time to think about something else, something a bit less silly?


> > *including the OED*
>

The lexicographers who wrote the OEC are experts in words but they probably
have less philosophical insight into the fundamental nature of reality than
you do.

> *which is mostly reliable in how to built semantic webs of meaning*
>

A dictionary can't even do that with nothing but definitions, you need real
world examples to obtain meaning. Somebody points to the squiggle "tree"
and then to a tall thing with green stuff at the top in the real world and
a child gets the connection. Without examples from the real world the OED
would just be a web of squiggles and not a web of meaning.

> *and not at all concerning the ultimate truth of anything. *
>

But wasn't that what we were talking about?

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

25v

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0_SqrqRiRKXSWNOE-Hj0VMA4vqGFhxW-5HqjU8oHRqTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 20:47, schrieb John Clark:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
>> *> I think John rejects zombies,*
> 
> Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am 
> conscious and the evidence is overwhelming that Darwinian evolution is 
> correct, but if you could have intelligent behavior without consciousness 
> then natural selection could never have invented it, yet it did.

I agree with your premises but not with your conclusions. I agree that:

- I am conscious.
- There is overwhelming evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution.

I disagree that:

- Natural selection "invented" consciousness. 

Maybe stars are conscious. Why not? How do you know?

- If you could have intelligent behavior without consciousness then natural 
selection could never have invented it.

Why? Some people are born without legs. Does that means that natural selection 
could not have invented legs?

Telmo

> Therefore the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is the inevitable 
> byproduct of intelligence.
> 
>> * >so he would have to reject objective truth to believe a physical computer 
>> is necessary to produce observers. Below is what I wrote:*
>> * **The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe 
>> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and 
>> be true independently of the universe*
> 
> But I don't believe that. If there were zero or even just one thing in the 
> entire universe then the very concept of "2" would be meaningless, as would 
> the concept of additon. In fact if there was just one thing then there would 
> be nothing because the best definition of "nothing" that I know of is 
> infinite unbounded homogeneity.
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> idb
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2TcpKJnrdf6PKWd2NYYqb834pvbahH2vfk0Acw%2BOTExg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e71f3a80-885c-42c0-8cf0-20e045326112%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 14:55, schrieb John Clark:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:04 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
>> *> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)*
> 
> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram

I like him too. Mathematica is a beautiful piece of software and I bought his 
book "A New Kind of Science" when it came out, which is also beautiful and 
inspiring.

> and I agree 100% with the ASCII sequence that Stephen Wolfram's *physical* 
> brain produced:
> 
> "*As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will 
> immediately ask “On what computer?" But a key intellectual point is that 
> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly, 
> without reference to anything like a physical computer*. "
> 
> All completely true, however you can't make a computation with a definition, 
> not even if the definition is what a computation is. For a definition to make 
> any sense you need a mind, and to have a mind you need a brain, and a brain 
> needs to process information, and if a Turing Machine cannot process a given 
> amount of information then nothing can. And nobody, I repeat absolutely 
> nobody, has been able to make a Turing machine without using the laws of 
> physics

We are physical beings existing within the laws of physics. It could be that 
there is a larger computational reality, and that our universe and the laws of 
physics are "local" to the "sector" of the computation that we inhabit. We are 
experiencing this computational reality from the inside.

> or has even propose a theory about how such a thing could be possible 
> because, as I said in the above, you can't make a computation with nothing 
> but a definition, in fact *you can't do anything at all* if all you have is a 
> definition.

The tricky thing, that Jason expanded on better than me, is that the outcomes 
of computations preexist, in the sense that the outcome will be the same 
independently of how, when or where the computation is performed. We might need 
a physical computer to find out that 12345 * 67890 = 838102050, but it was 
already and it always has been and will be the case that 12345 * 67890 = 
838102050 (by definition of the natural numbers and multiplication). 

> 
>> * > My scepticism is this: is anything being gained in terms of explanatory 
>> power? *
> 
> Although quite interesting so far Stephen Wolfram cellular automation ideas 
> have been no help whatsoever to physicists, but perhaps someday they may be,

They are however already quite interesting from computer science, I would say. 
I am still to this day fascinated by the fact that some elementary cellular 
automata rules such as rule 110 are Turing complete and display chaotic 
behavior, while most others are stable. The connections with phenotypical 
expression in nature are also quite fascinating. It is hard to not suspect that 
there is something fundamental going on here.

Telmo

> maybe someday we'll find that quarks behave the way they do because of some 
> simple cellular automation at work inside them, but even if that day comes to 
> pass you're still not going to be able to make a Turing machine, or anything 
> else, with just a definition. 
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ewg
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> __
>> Hi Jason,
>> 
>> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started going 
>> in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs are 
>> perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be 
>> conceived of. Almost everything else can be seen as a special case of 
>> hypergraphs. Like you say, with the update rules, we shouldn't be surprised 
>> if they are equivalent to the UD. My scepticism is this: is anything being 
>> gained in terms of explanatory power? Should we be surprised that such a 
>> powerful representation can contain the rules of our reality? I do admit 
>> that I have to study these ideas in more detail, and there is something 
>> really compelling about hypergraphs + update rules.
>> 
>> "As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will 
>> immediately ask “On what computer?” But a key intellectual point is that 
>> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly, 
>> without reference to anything like a physical computer. "
>> 
>> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)
>> 
>> Telmo.
>> 
>> Am Do, 11. Aug 2022, um 20:35, schrieb Jason Resch:
>>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the 
>>> type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with 
>>> new ways of explaining it and some new insights.
>>> 
>>> Jason
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Writings

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 19:56, schrieb Jason Resch:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> __
>> Hi Jason,
>> 
>> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started going 
>> in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs are 
>> perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be 
>> conceived of. Almost everything else can be seen as a special case of 
>> hypergraphs. Like you say, with the update rules, we shouldn't be surprised 
>> if they are equivalent to the UD. My scepticism is this: is anything being 
>> gained in terms of explanatory power? Should we be surprised that such a 
>> powerful representation can contain the rules of our reality? I do admit 
>> that I have to study these ideas in more detail, and there is something 
>> really compelling about hypergraphs + update rules.
> 
> That is a good question. I am not familiar with them myself, but my 
> understanding is they do not provide for any form of computation beyond what 
> is turing computable, so in that sense, I don't know that they provide any 
> additional explanatory power beyond the simple statement that all 
> computations exist.
> 
> A commenter on my site recently asked, what can we say about the "computer" 
> that computes all these computations. My reply was:
>> 
>> "There is no single one. There are infinite varieties of different TMs, and 
>> all can exist Platonically/Arithmetically. Gregory Chaitin discovered an 
>> equation whose structure models LISP computers. There are likewise other 
>> equations corresponding to the Java Virtual Machine, and the Commodore 64.

This is really interesting, I didn't know about that! Can you provide some 
references?

>> All these Turing machines, and their execution traces of every computer 
>> program they can run, exist in math in the same sense that the Mandelbrot 
>> set or the decimal expansion of Pi exist in math. Despite the infinite 
>> variety of architectures for different Turing machines, their equivalence 
>> (in the Turing computability sense) makes the question of “Which Turing 
>> machine is running this universe?” impossible to answer, beyond saying, “all 
>> of them are.”"

I agree.

> I think hypergraphs, then, would be just one more mathematical object we 
> could add to the heap of Turing universal mathematical objects which could 
> (and would, if Platonism is correct) underlie the computations of our 
> universe/experiences.
>  
>> 
>> 
>> "As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will 
>> immediately ask “On what computer?” But a key intellectual point is that 
>> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly, 
>> without reference to anything like a physical computer. "
> 
> My same reply also provided an explanation/argument, which is applicable to 
> anyone who accepts simple truths concerning abstract objects have definite 
> and objective true/false values, paired with a rejection of philosophical 
> zombies. I think John rejects zombies, so he would have to reject objective 
> truth to believe a physical computer is necessary to produce observers. Below 
> is what I wrote:
> 
>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe that 
>> truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be 
>> true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a 
>> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
> 
>> For if the truth values of certain simple relations have an independent 
>> existence, then so to do the truth values of far more complex equations. 
>> Let’s call the Diophantine equation that computes the Wave Function of the 
>> Hubble Volume of our universe “Equation X”. Now then, it becomes a question 
>> of pure arithmetic, whether it is true or false that:
> 
>> “In Equation X, does the universal state variable U, at time step T contain 
>> a pattern of electrons that encode to the string:
>> ‘why does the existence of Universal Equations imply the existence of 
>> iterative search processes for solutions?'”
> 
>> If that question has a definitive objective truth, then it is the case that 
>> in the universe U, at time step T, in equation X, there is some person in 
>> that universe who had a conscious thought, and wrote it down and it got 
>> organized into a pattern of electrons which anyone who inspects this vast 
>> equation with its huge variables could see.
> 
>> Once you get to this point, the last and final step is to reject the 
>> possibility that the patterns found in these equations, which behave and act 
>> like they are conscious, and claim to be conscious, are philosophical 
>> zombies. In other words, to accept that they are conscious beings, just like 
>> those who exist in “physical” universes (assuming there is any possible 
>> distinction between a physical universe, and a physical universe computed by 
>> a Platonic or Arithmetic 

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

[Alan Grayson]

It's puzzling why Bruce and Clark affirm IR-reversible in principle in the 
context of the collapse model of the CI, when they should know that this is 
the source of the error. If the apparatus is treated quantum mechanically, 
we are left SOLELY with IR-reversible FAPP. But this is still an unproven, 
and likely unprovable result of decoherence theory. AG

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:40:13 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> I was referring to IRREVERSIBLIY IN PRINCIPLE, which is an artifact of the 
> collapse hypothesis of the CI. What remains, for sure, is IRREVERSIBILITY 
> FAPP.  AG
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 9:07:04 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> IRREVERSIBILITY is an artifact of the CI, where collapse occurs to an 
>> eigenstate of the observable being measured. But if the measuring apparatus 
>> is treated quantum mechanically, all processes associated with measurements 
>> are unitary and reversible. 
>>
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any 
>>> time, I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
>>> PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

 *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are 
> "reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different 
> initial 
> boundary conditions?*
>

 If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
 entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
 and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
 produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
 are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
 astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
 entropy.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
 
 2le




-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c0715c2e-4b00-4935-9229-c9a838c4f05dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Believe it or not?

[Alan Grayson]

Since we have zero information whether the guy is lying or not, we have to 
assume a 50% probability that he's telling the truth. Is there any 
"scientist" here willing to go that far? AG

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:45:43 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0INH_DI1M
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5cf40055-08b7-49a4-9951-1da95444bdfan%40googlegroups.com.