Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

*> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
> Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
> elements of reality beyond the quantum description*
>

Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics* must *be
incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous. But it turned
out nature *could* be that ridiculous. The moral of the story is that being
ridiculous is not necessarily the same thing as being wrong.

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

brw




>>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

In Einstein's 1935 EPR paper he thought he had found a consequence of
quantum mechanics that was a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof that it couldn't be
true. But he forgot that for such a proved to be valid you need to do more
than prove that something is ridiculous, you need to prove that it's
logically contradictory, because in the 1980s it was shown experimentally
that such ridiculous things actually happen. Quantum mechanics is
ridiculous but not logically contradictory.

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

rpr

-- 
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/CAJPayv3-Rg71cjDP5PY%3Dg38hPb86u25Cabe631Lk%3DjDRM9geCg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:44 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:


*> It has been suggested that the cosmic multiverse and the quantum
> multiverse of Everett are the same thing. But I think that this idea is
> patently ridiculous.*
>

Perhaps so, but is it ridiculous enough to be true?  Quantum mechanics
itself seems pretty ridiculous to me, not paradoxical but ridiculous.

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

wqr






 -

-- 
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/CAJPayv0Wanz88SYNba0yE3X0vGSo2ZKoa%3DUVSpTLdrLuPdBSEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Open AI whistleblower ?

[John Clark]

OpenAl Secretly Achieves AGI Internally [Whistleblower]


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

o9y

-- 
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/CAJPayv1X_LuRT3S%2B6aGTh3ehO%2B68OEgLwsvmeWSRvGgs7S%3DyKA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 4:54 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> The entire purpose of a thought experiment is to help you understand
>> something, if you replace the radioactive decay of an atom, which according
>> to quantum mechanics is supposed to be random, an event without a cause,
>> with a mechanical clock then I don't see how your modification of
>> Schrodinger's cat helps anybody understand anything.
>
>


> * > I didn't replace the atom.  I connected a clock to the vial so there's
> a record or when it is broken.*
>

OK so now is the clock that exists in the 12:01 State, and the 12:02 and
the 12:03 and the 12:04 and the... 12:59 state, and it doesn't snap into
one particular state until you open the box. How was that better than the
original experiment?


 >> QBism certainly works, but I dismiss it because it's just "shut up and
>> calculate" with a different name.
>
>
> * >When calculate the impact of two boxcars do you refuse to use the
> concept of inertia becasue there's no storybook about where it comes from? *


No of course not, and I'm not saying people shouldn't use shut up and
calculate or its pseudonym "QBism", I'm just saying it's not a bad thing if
somebody wants to look a little deeper into the nature of inertia, because
the discovery of the Higgs field and the Higgs particle partially solves
the mystery of inertia, at least it explains why quarks have mass and can
explain about 1% of the mass of macroscopic objects, and that's a start. If
people just give up we will never find any answers.


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
eqp


wdn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> iws
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 6:58 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>>
>>>> *I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense
>>>> <https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668>
>>>>  by Jacob
>>>> Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter
>>>> to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very
>>>> polite letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have
>>>> time to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Hello Professor Barandes *
>>>>
>>>> *I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with
>>>> interest and I have a few comments:*
>>>>
>>>> *Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a
>>>> proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *
>>>>
>>>> *1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is
>>>> clear about what it's saying. *
>>>> *2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental
>>>> results. *
>>>> *3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave
>>>> collapse theories like GRW do.*
>>>>
>>>> *4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is
>>>> because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's
>>>> equation.   *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and
>>>> such things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many
>>>> worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are
>>>> not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the
>>>> multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You
>>>> say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but
>>>> then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher
>>>> probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds
>>>> there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not
>>>> forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe
>>>> splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps
>>>> an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not
>>>> interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it
>>>> lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful
>>>> probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though
>>>> the continuous curve i

Why was Sam Altman fired from open AI?

[John Clark]

The day before Sam Altman, the head of Open AI, was fired,  he said he
had "*witnessed
the frontier of knowledge being pushed back four times in my experience at
Open AI, and the last time was recently a couple weeks ago*".  He didn't
give any details about what he was talking about but my theory, and I could
be completely wrong, is that the company had internally developed an AGI,
and Altman wanted to rapidly develop it further while others in the
company, especially Ilya Sutskever didn't because they were afraid of it.
And Altman lost the argument and lost the company as a result.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ecx

-- 
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/CAJPayv0b1Ag7fTBZ7_2gP3Xxc1q%2B5HLZxnmn1YFLyOeekw7Cfw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:25 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > A good letter to Brandes, but I think you use Schroedinger's cat to
> much.  If one imagines a clock attached to the poison vial, then it's clear
> that on opening the box you will see an alive or dead cat and a running
> clock or one that marks the exact time in the past that the cat was
> killed. *
>

The entire purpose of a thought experiment is to help you understand
something, if you replace the radioactive decay of an atom, which according
to quantum mechanics is supposed to be random, an event without a cause,
with a mechanical clock then I don't see how your modification of
Schrodinger's cat helps anybody understand anything.


> * > So decoherence theory has answered the problem of why we don't see
> superpositions of alive and dead cats. *
>

 Decoherence theory is fine but it can't resolve  Schrodinger's cat
paradox, at least not to my satisfaction.


> *> I notice that you never entertain QBism and seem to dismiss it as "just
> not an intuitively satisfying theory;*
>

 QBism certainly works, but I dismiss it because it's just "shut up and
calculate" with a different name.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
wdn











>
>
>
> iws
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 6:58 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> *I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense
>>> <https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668> 
>>> by Jacob
>>> Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter
>>> to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very
>>> polite letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have
>>> time to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
>>> ===
>>>
>>>
>>> *Hello Professor Barandes *
>>>
>>> *I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with
>>> interest and I have a few comments:*
>>>
>>> *Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a
>>> proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *
>>>
>>> *1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is
>>> clear about what it's saying. *
>>> *2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental
>>> results. *
>>> *3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave
>>> collapse theories like GRW do.*
>>>
>>> *4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is
>>> because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's
>>> equation.   *
>>>
>>>
>>> *I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and
>>> such things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many
>>> worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are
>>> not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the
>>> multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You
>>> say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but
>>> then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher
>>> probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds
>>> there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not
>>> forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe
>>> splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps
>>> an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not
>>> interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it
>>> lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful
>>> probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though
>>> the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of
>>> points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out
>>> which part of the bell curve we're most likely on. *
>>>
>>> *Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the
>>> multiverse really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of
>>> the idea that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds
>>> turns out to be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity
>>> plus an infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number.
>>> Even if there is only one universe i

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 9:17 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> That's kind of him to reply. Aren't functional quantum computers proof
> that atoms can be in two places at once?*
>

I would say so but apparently he would not. And I'll be damned if I can
understand why the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester works if there is no other
world but this one. The Copenhagen interpretation people would say that I
should just treat mathematics as a black box and accept the results of the
calculation and not even try to understand what's actually going on. But
I'd like to at least try.


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
iws




>
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 6:58 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> *I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense
>> <https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668> 
>> by Jacob
>> Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter
>> to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very
>> polite letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have
>> time to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
>> ===
>>
>>
>> *Hello Professor Barandes*
>>
>> *I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with
>> interest and I have a few comments:*
>>
>> *Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a
>> proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *
>>
>> *1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is
>> clear about what it's saying. *
>> *2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental
>> results. *
>> *3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave
>> collapse theories like GRW do.*
>>
>> *4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is
>> because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's
>> equation.  *
>>
>>
>> *I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and
>> such things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many
>> worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are
>> not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the
>> multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You
>> say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but
>> then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher
>> probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds
>> there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not
>> forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe
>> splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps
>> an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not
>> interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it
>> lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful
>> probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though
>> the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of
>> points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out
>> which part of the bell curve we're most likely on.*
>>
>> *Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the
>> multiverse really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of
>> the idea that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds
>> turns out to be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity
>> plus an infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number.
>> Even if there is only one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance
>> away there must be a doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge
>> number of quantum states your body could be in, that number is not
>> infinite, but the universe is. *
>>
>>
>> *And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of
>> results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be
>> based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's
>> equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function
>> collapsing. I would maintain that many worlds is bare-bones no-nonsense
>> quantum mechanics with none of the silly bells and whistles that other
>> theories stick on that do nothing but get rid of those  pesky other worlds
>> that keep cropping up that they personally dislike for some reason. A

The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

*I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense

by Jacob
Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter
to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very polite
letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have time
to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
===


*Hello Professor Barandes*

*I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with interest
and I have a few comments:*

*Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a
proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *

*1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is
clear about what it's saying. *
*2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental
results. *
*3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave
collapse theories like GRW do.*

*4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is
because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's
equation.  *


*I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and such
things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many
worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are
not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the
multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You
say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but
then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher
probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds
there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not
forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe
splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps
an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not
interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it
lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful
probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though
the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of
points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out
which part of the bell curve we're most likely on.*

*Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the multiverse
really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of the idea
that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds turns out to
be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity plus an
infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number. Even if there
is only one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance away there
must be a doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge number of
quantum states your body could be in, that number is not infinite, but the
universe is. *


*And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of
results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be
based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's
equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function
collapsing. I would maintain that many worlds is bare-bones no-nonsense
quantum mechanics with none of the silly bells and whistles that other
theories stick on that do nothing but get rid of those  pesky other worlds
that keep cropping up that they personally dislike for some reason. And
since Everett's time other worlds do seem to keep popping up and in
completely unrelated fields, such as string theory and inflationary
cosmology.*


*You also ask what a “rational observer” is and how they ought to behave,
and place bets on future events, given their self-locating uncertainty. I
agree with David Hume who said that "ought" cannot be derived from "is",
but "ought" can be derived from "want". So if an observer is a gambler that
WANTS to make money but is irrational then he is absolutely guaranteed to
lose all his money if he plays long enough, while a rational observer who
knows how to make use of continuous probabilities is guaranteed to make
money, or at least break even. Physicists WANT their ideas to be clear,
have predictive power, and to conform with reality as described by
experiment; therefore I think they OUGHT to embrace the many world's idea.
 *


*And yes there is a version of you and me that flips a coin 1 million times
and see heads every single time even though the coin is 100% fair, however
it is extremely unlikely that we will find ourselves that far out on the
bell curve, so I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that I will
not see 1 million heads in a row.  You also say that "the Dirac-von Neumann
axioms don’t support oft-heard statements that an atom can be in two places
at once, or that a cat can be alive and dead 

A weight loss drug lowers the chance of getting a heart attack

[John Clark]

In a large 40 month long research trial of 17,604 patients, researchers
found that the weight loss drug "Wegovy" lowered the chance of suffering
major cardiovascular problems by 20%. All the people in the trial were 45
years old or older and had a pre-existing cardiovascular disease and a body
mass index of 27 kg/m2 or greater (overweight or obese), but who did not
have diabetes. It has already been established that the drug lowers the
risk of heart attack from those who did have diabetes.


The drugs Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus are all exactly the same and are all
made by the same company  "Novo Nordisk", but for marketing reasons  they
decided to give them different names depending on what they are used for,
one when it is used to treat diabetes, a different name when used for
weight loss, and yet another name when used to lower the risk of heart
attack. To add to the confusion the chemical name for all three drugs is
"Semaglutide", but they're all the same thing and they're all made by the
same company.  I don't know it for a fact but I wouldn't be surprised if
the next trial is to find out if Semaglutide lowers the risk of sudden
heart attack in those who had no previous history of cardiovascular
problems.


Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Overweight or
Obesity Who Do Not Have Diabetes



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

wld

-- 
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/CAJPayv1vDaQq53UsUBZyUC-XefRv6Y-5-p3wfU5iDGWsbx_npQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: Start-Ups With Laser Beams: The Companies Trying to Ignite Fusion Energy

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:20 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> If I were to found a tech-startup the bottom choice would be to do
> fusion energy.*


Yeah, a venture capitalist needs to make his money back within about five
years or so, and the chances of finding a way to make a practical fusion
power plant in the next five years is a long shot, but I'm glad somebody
has the courage to try because sometimes longshots pay off.

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

lsp







>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0ueWoemkMch4wH2t1oGD%3DfYEhwycVOBwSFBiLeCC51LQ%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: Start-Ups With Laser Beams: The Companies Trying to Ignite Fusion Energy

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

Start-Ups With Laser Beams: The Companies Trying to Ignite Fusion Energy

Companies are looking to commercialize advances made by federally supported
research labs in the quest for boundless energy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/science/laser-fusion-energy-start-ups.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-Uw.Oyu0.wGd-eJajK30m=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv1KNRMa2GD9xo9BCatiPnRLNiRo8vRZvSTzPGTK1vQu4w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A new semiconductor that is 1 million times faster than silicon

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 4:30 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > How would you reconfigure the electronic shells of an atom without
> changing the charge of the nucleus?*
>


The valence electron shells of atoms change every time they undergo a
chemical reaction.  Changing the electrical properties in a material so
that it is precisely what you want it to be in order to make a better
computer chip is just taking the next step, although it's a very big step.
If you're clever and mix various substances in precisely the right
proportions, you can make the electrons in a semiconductor behave as if
they were part of an element that isn't really there, or even part of a
hypothetical element that doesn't exist in the real world.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
oit



>
>
> On 11/13/2023 2:52 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Interesting. I do think it is possible to reconfigure an atom, say a
> carbon atom, so that it assumes electronic properties of almost any other
> atom. We can in a sense synthesize Rhenium or any other rare element.
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
>
>> In the November 10 2023 issue of the journal Science researchers report
>> on a new type of semiconductor that is one million times faster than any
>> found before and does so at room temperature; it's a compound of Rhenium
>> Chlorine and Selenium (Re6Se8Cl2), if entire chips could be made of this
>> substance they could make a calculation in the femtosecond range (10^-15 of
>> a second) instead of the gigahertz range  (10^-9 of a second) as silicon
>> does.
>>
>>  Room-temperature wavelike exciton transport in a van der Waals
>> superatomic semiconductor
>> <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf2698>
>>
>> Until now the transport of information in all semiconductors, silicon
>> including, is limited by scattering between electrons  and lattice quantum
>> vibrations called "phonons" that results in the electrons losing energy
>> and wasting their time by bouncing around and traveling in a very indirect
>> route to the target. Thanks to a new phenomenon never observed before, the
>> electrons in Re6Se8Cl2 move directly towards their target without losing
>> energy or time. Unfortunately it's unlikely that chip Industry will abandon
>> silicon and turn to it because Rhenium is rare and expensive, about $3000 a
>> kilogram and only about 50 tons are refined a year, but now that
>> researchers know what to look for they will almost certainly find other
>> materials that make use of the same new phenomenon.  Of course even if a
>> cheap material could be found it would still be a challenge to make
>> advanced computer chips out of it because we couldn't make use of 50 the
>> years of experience we have in working with silicon so we'd be starting
>> from scratch, but if it's 1 million times faster it would be worth it.
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>> iww
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2iuPHpnOW%3D%2BiBeYXxaW76h7eRBh-YbxPu_ogaqXgqVEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A new semiconductor ​that is 1 million times faster than silicon​

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 5:52 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Interesting. I do think it is possible to reconfigure an atom, say a
> carbon atom, so that it assumes electronic properties of almost any other
> atom. We can in a sense synthesize Rhenium or any other rare element.*


That is a very cool idea! And calculating which material would make the
best artificial atoms for semiconductor chips would be just the sort of
thing that a quantum computer would be good at.  It would sure beat trial
and error.

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

wbt

>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3wgOXi4iszQh98W1f4KYmkJ3n29XOe1qNBxTqV-7Fu%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: What History Tells Us About the Feel-Bad Economy

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:37 PM smitra  wrote:

*> I don't think the US and other major economies will escape a severe
> recession next year, because the fundamental problem facing us is that
> we're gong cold turkey on the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) and
> quantitative easing (QE). These policies were kept in place long after
> economy had regained its footing after the 2008 financial crisis.*


And after that the country suffered a bungled response to the worst
epidemic in its history. Forget recession, after a massive shock to the
economy that huge it's a miracle the economy didn't enter a 1829 style
depression, and we can thank  the Federal Reserve's low interest rates and
the Federal government's liberal spending for averting that catastrophe .
Today the US economy is healthier than that of Europe, the UK, Japan and
even China, and  unemployment is lower than it's been in 50 years. The only
negativity was a brief pulse of high inflation but it didn't last long,
today it's only 3.7%, last year at this time it was 8.2% .

*> What should have been done a few years after 2008, was to gradually stop
> the ZIRP and QE policies.*


 Europe and the United Kingdom kept doing what you advised even after the
pandemic, and as a result today they are both mired in a deep recession
while the US economy handled things differently and is thriving.

*> So, while it is true that so far things look like moving in the right
> direction, this is only because of a large lag effects of the rate hikes.*


That's exactly what people were saying one year ago, but still no sign of th
e prediction coming true. Fiscal conservatives are always predicting
economic catastrophe, but with the exception of  3 years during the Bill
Clinton administration (who was a democrat by the way)  the US government
has never had a balanced budget since 1835.

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

otb









I posted my comment here:
>
> https://nyti.ms/40AQJCh#permid=129092606
> \
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2w7X7xzA0ypK0fjTmX%2B3dobhMXUc27VT-PvOjma4vq1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

A new semiconductor ​that is 1 million times faster than silicon​

[John Clark]

In the November 10 2023 issue of the journal Science researchers report on
a new type of semiconductor that is one million times faster than any found
before and does so at room temperature; it's a compound of Rhenium Chlorine
and Selenium (Re6Se8Cl2), if entire chips could be made of this substance
they could make a calculation in the femtosecond range (10^-15 of a second)
instead of the gigahertz range  (10^-9 of a second) as silicon does.

 Room-temperature wavelike exciton transport in a van der Waals superatomic
semiconductor 

Until now the transport of information in all semiconductors, silicon
including, is limited by scattering between electrons  and lattice quantum
vibrations called "phonons" that results in the electrons losing energy and
wasting their time by bouncing around and traveling in a very indirect
route to the target. Thanks to a new phenomenon never observed before, the
electrons in Re6Se8Cl2 move directly towards their target without losing
energy or time. Unfortunately it's unlikely that chip Industry will abandon
silicon and turn to it because Rhenium is rare and expensive, about $3000 a
kilogram and only about 50 tons are refined a year, but now that
researchers know what to look for they will almost certainly find other
materials that make use of the same new phenomenon.  Of course even if a
cheap material could be found it would still be a challenge to make
advanced computer chips out of it because we couldn't make use of 50 the
years of experience we have in working with silicon so we'd be starting
from scratch, but if it's 1 million times faster it would be worth it.

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

iww

-- 
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/CAJPayv0PVDC4VBLoCOiNKrVjCH6PmbY96yPNH_Ph5NOVNdZ6aQ%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: What History Tells Us About the Feel-Bad Economy

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

What History Tells Us About the Feel-Bad Economy

Why are voters unhappy about low unemployment and falling inflation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/opinion/biden-economy-unemployment-history.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9Uw.oavr.izSY2fH23dGq=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv1Uui%2BD2nesf8RqMFJDP894Jkdq1nR7O14N%2BrNccuNjxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Cryptography could help us figure out if a photograph is real or an AI fake

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 3:12 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> GPS works entirely passively on the receiver side. There would be no
> external validation of the GPS coordinates.*
>

I know, but I don't think it would be very difficult to add that
functionality. Or you could have the cell phone providers do it, although
I'd trust the GPS people more.

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

nvd


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2%3DpBmFkiiXkS0Xt1uRbnDY%3D7%3DPyHzz0GvbnL3rcU9zsA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Cryptography could help us figure out if a photograph is real or an AI fake

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:59 PM Jason Resch  wrote:


*> How does Apple (or whoever is signing the image and its metadata) know
> it was taken by an iphone at a particular location?*
>

Regardless of how the picture was  produced, the GPS timestamp created by
the GPS people can verify exactly when it was made, and can verify where
the picture was claimed to have been made. And Apple Corporation can verify
that the iPhone that was supposed to have taken the picture has been
registered to Mr. Joe Blow. So if the picture is an embarrassing picture of
a politician and if the picture is phony then Mr. Blow must be involved.
Mr. Blow is either an innocent bystander who got his iPhone hacked and his
secret key stolen, or he is actively engaged in deception because he wants
the politician to lose the next election.  But if there's no evidence of
any hacking and if Mr. Blow has no history of criminality and seems pretty
apolitical and if it's not impossible that the politician could have been
at that place at that time, then it would be reasonable to conclude that
the photograph was real.

That's certainly an improvement to what we have now;  a photograph with no
provenance at all, an anonymous person just posts a picture on the Internet
with no hint about where or when the picture was taken or by who.

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

qoz

q0z

-- 
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/CAJPayv1r1TOfKn7k7CqCHba5Kg7BMY6SQKr6KXSKmoktSTSRog%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Cryptography could help us figure out if a photograph is real or an AI fake

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:06 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

>> I don't care if Joe Blow signs it or not with his private key that's on
>> his iPhone because I have no reason to trust Mr. Blow. I want the Apple
>> Corporation and the people who run the GPS satellites to sign a hash
>> function of the picture and the GPS data with their private keys, and their
>> private keys are not on anybody's phone, they're locked up somewhere in a
>> deep underground vault, or the cyber security equivalent.
>>
>
> *> But how would Apple, in your scenario, authenticate the picture was
> really taken from the camera of an iPhone?*
>

The person claims the picture was taken by an iPhone, if he is lying about
that then that is a very strong reason to suspect the picture is phony. Why
else would he lie about it?  And even if I couldn't be sure how the picture
was made I'd still know when and where it was made. So you couldn't claim
to have a compromising picture of me when I was a teenager, or claim to
have a picture of me taken in Bangkok the day before yesterday when I can
prove that the day before yesterday I was in Las Vegas.

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

ilv



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv14KpZtQ_MLhoM9MYuiOZhxcdw5cMMucKLO5NOy5%3DH2Jw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Cryptography could help us figure out if a photograph is real or an AI fake

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:54 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

>> I agree, but I think most people, myself included, would trust that the
>> entire GPS satellite system is unlikely to be part of some grand conspiracy
>> of deception, nor is it likely that the Apple Corporation is stupid enough
>> to do so either because if such deception was ever made public, and secrets
>> that huge can never be kept for long, it would be the ruin of the trillion
>> dollar company.  At any rate I'd certainly trust them more than I'd
>> trust any politician. Or Fox News.
>>
>
>
> *> I don't know how feasible it would be for  any device maker to prevent
> someone from extracting a private key from a hardware device which is
> already is in the hands of the person who seeks to extract it.*
>

I don't care if Joe Blow signs it or not with his private key that's on his
iPhone because I have no reason to trust Mr. Blow. I want the Apple
Corporation and the people who run the GPS satellites to sign a hash
function of the picture and the GPS data with their private keys, and their
private keys are not on anybody's phone, they're locked up somewhere in a
deep underground vault, or the cyber security equivalent.  Well OK, it's
theoretically possible that anybody's secret key can get hacked, so even
that isn't 100% secure, but then nothing is. However I think such a scheme
could provide pretty good evidence that a picture was genuine.

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


los


>>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Fvu4t_Anju7gifuE5UcPXhp_L1kfSnULGOXFiiSTZmw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Cryptography could help us figure out if a photograph is real or an AI fake

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:11 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> I think such protocols are only useful for verifying whether the image
> came from an already known and trusted source. I don't see that it could
> verify whether some content is genuine or not if you didn't already
> know/trust the entity it is purported to come from (and trust that they
> would not provide you with false content).*
>

I agree, but I think most people, myself included, would trust that the
entire GPS satellite system is unlikely to be part of some grand conspiracy
of deception, nor is it likely that the Apple Corporation is stupid enough
to do so either because if such deception was ever made public, and secrets
that huge can never be kept for long, it would be the ruin of the trillion
dollar company.  At any rate I'd certainly trust them more than I'd trust
any politician. Or Fox News.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
3ep






>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:14 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> Now that AI art is so good it's becoming impossible to determine if a
>> photograph is real or fake, but a new open-source internet protocol
>> called "C2PA" may offer a solution. If camera and smartphone makers
>> agree to do so their products would all have a feature (which I hope you
>> would be allowed to turn off if you wish) that would make a cryptographic
>> hash of the picture and, thanks to GPS satellites, also have information on
>> the time and place the picture was taken, and on the type of camera and
>> exposure settings. Any alteration to the picture could easily be
>> determined. And if social media companies cooperated you could even figure
>> out when it was first posted on them. You could find out all of this stuff
>> with just one click, it would work something like this:
>>
>> What happens if real is actually fake? <https://truepic.com/revel/>
>>
>> Of course you could refuse to use C2PA, but if you did that would make
>> somebody deeply suspicious that your photograph is real.
>>
>> Cryptography may offer a solution to the massive AI-labeling problem
>> <https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/28/1076843/cryptography-ai-labeling-problem-c2pa-provenance/>
>>
>>
>> 5tt
>>
>>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1KZ_ArPbSPe0nTrTKvHkRUw2xeofkNS3BrOVytbZexXg%40mail.gmail.com.

Cryptography could help us figure out if a photograph is real or an AI fake

[John Clark]

Now that AI art is so good it's becoming impossible to determine if a
photograph is real or fake, but a new open-source internet protocol
called "C2PA"
may offer a solution. If camera and smartphone makers agree to do so their
products would all have a feature (which I hope you would be allowed to
turn off if you wish) that would make a cryptographic hash of the picture
and, thanks to GPS satellites, also have information on the time and place
the picture was taken, and on the type of camera and exposure settings. Any
alteration to the picture could easily be determined. And if social media
companies cooperated you could even figure out when it was first posted on
them. You could find out all of this stuff with just one click, it would
work something like this:

What happens if real is actually fake? 

Of course you could refuse to use C2PA, but if you did that would make
somebody deeply suspicious that your photograph is real.

Cryptography may offer a solution to the massive AI-labeling problem


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

5tt

-- 
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/CAJPayv3QwOgZmxztpqErch8BuCi8Ffv5fN7WGpFYvFO%3DzotRHg%40mail.gmail.com.

The whiny billionaire

[John Clark]

 Donald Trump, the son of a billionaire, believes the world has treated him
very* very* *VERY *unfairly.

"This is a *very **unfair* trial. *Very, very." *

"Judge  Curiel is Hispanic, and because of the wall and because of
everything that’s going on with Mexico…this is a judge who I believe has
treated me *very very unfairly*. I've been treated *very unfairly* by this
judge."

"Judge  Chutkan is highly partisan and very biased & *unfair.*”

"Judge  Engoron is* unfair*, crazy, unhinged, and a disgrace to the legal
profession"

"No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been
treated worse or more* unfairly*. If you can believe it, Abraham Lincoln
was treated supposedly very badly, but nobody's been treated badly like me. No
politician in history has been treated more *unfairly*."

"Literally everything I want to do is magically a violation of the
Constitution, that's very *unfair*. Russia has much better constitution
writers than we do. I talked to Putin, and he said their constitution never
gives him problems. The situation is* very unfair*!  And bad treatment."

"I've been audited for many, many years in a row, which I think is* unfair*. I
*unfairly* get audited by the I.R.S. almost every single year. I have rich
friends who never get audited."

 "I have tremendous support with the evangelicals and with the Christians
and with everybody, we're going to get rid of the Johnson Amendment that is*
very, very unfair*."

"My daughter Ivanka has been treated so* unfairly."*

"I think General Flynn has been treated *very, very unfairly."*

"If something is* unfair* I will counter attack."

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

ewb

-- 
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/CAJPayv2PGq5Nv0Tj9jSOaA9UX7BTvi3FiRqTx3QXT%3DL7MTzLtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [Extropolis] A Dyson sphere by 2030?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 3:31 PM Henrik Ohrstrom 
wrote:

*> Nanosanta or not.*
>

Unlike time travel or perpetual motion machines. no breakthrough in science
is required for Nanosanta or Von Neumann Probes to become a reality, just
improved engineering.


> *> Traveltime does not go away just because nanotechnology or AI. *
>

True, on his construction site the poor AI would still be unable to move
things faster than the speed of light. I guess Mr. Jupiter Brain will just
have to muddle through.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JzAbsocRhY%3DXRWffuxHhDjTLMqKFhs3bcCoFcrhzO3A%40mail.gmail.com.

A Dyson sphere by 2030?

[John Clark]

I found this paper to be interesting:

Large Language Models Understand and Can be Enhanced by Emotional Stimuli


I also found an interesting prediction by Paul Christiano who is a leading
researcher at open AI where GPT-4 was made, on a podcast he estimated there
is a 15% chance that an AI will have the ability to build a Dyson Sphere by
2030 and a 40% chance by 2040. Later, after further reflection, he said
that his podcast statement was probably too conservative!

He makes that statement 2:47 in, but the entire video as well worth
watching:


AI Declarations and AGI Timelines – Looking More Optimistic?


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

ads

-- 
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/CAJPayv367YR6JU9Hvur0QH4W0qOZWuUmrv4BTo3d1c4zKR_dGw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A Theory of Everyone

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 6:14 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> *Here's the free "Mindscape" podcast*
>
>
> https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/10/30/255-michael-muthukrishna-on-developing-a-theory-of-everyone/


That was extremely interesting, thanks a lot Brent.

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

tw1

-- 
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/CAJPayv0guGJCwZhFS6iR1MRq7icjvr2XiTnXwPnoSahusc9pCw%40mail.gmail.com.

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson

[John Clark]

The new Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is a young earth
creationist who believes that the universe is not 13.8 billion years old
but is less than 10,000 years old. He was successful in his fight to make
Kentucky taxpayers pay 18 million dollars to fund a Noah’s Ark theme park
which allows humans to ride animatronic dinosaurs which are on a full size
Noah’s Ark. He said:

 *“The 'Ark Encounter' is one way to bring people to this recognition of
the truth, that what we read in the Bible are actual historical events”. *

Mike Johnson believes that the reason we have school shootings is because
Darwin's theory of Evolution is taught there:

*"People say, ‘How can a young person go into their schoolhouse and open
fire on their classmates?’  Because we’ve taught a whole generation, a
couple generations now of Americans, that there’s no right or wrong, that
it’s about survival of the fittest, and you evolve from the primordial
slime. Why is that life of any sacred value? Because there’s nobody sacred
to whom it’s owed. None of this should surprise us.”*

Mike Johnson talks about the “*so-called separation of church and state*”
and said, “*The founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching
state, not the other way around*.” He has publicly praised “*18th-century
values*” and told an audience that Americans should live by them when it
comes to morality and religion. Even worse, he has close ties to "Christian
Dominionists" who believe the US as a Christian nation and should go back
to the religious values of the third, fourth and fifth centuries.

Oh I almost forgot one other little thing, Mike Johnson was one of 147
members of Congress who tried to destroy democracy in America by voting  to
overturn the results of the 2020 United States presidential election. So if
Donald Trump loses the 2024 election he will most certainly claim that
election was fraudulent too just as he has in every single election he has
ever lost, he even claimed that the TV Emmy awards were crooked when his
silly game show didn't get an Emmy. So now we know which side the speaker
of the House Of Representatives will be on when they debate if the 2024
election should be certified. In the meantime I sure hope that Joe Biden
and Pamela Harris remain healthy because otherwise it will be President
Mike Johnson.

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

soh

-- 
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/CAJPayv3SK1RUeZRKM-o1QBHh3nvWMgHA_TzuvSEX_1UfzV8q-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

There has been a breakthrough in the ability to train networks to be systematic

[John Clark]

AI ‘breakthrough’: neural net has human-like ability to generalize language



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


iag

-- 
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/CAJPayv3hQOcHKAMGTi5Ub3R5EQnJmr6nzkjOs4Fp7bSGSQk_6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

The World's Smallest Particle Accelerator

[John Clark]

In the October 18, 2023 issue of the Journal Nature scientists report they
have made the world's smallest particle Accelerator:

Coherent nanophotonic electron accelerator


The accelerator is just 0.5 millimeters long (0.02 inches) an electron beam
enters one one end of a channel with an energy of  28,400 electron-volts
and comes out the other end with an energy of 40,700 electron-volts. The
machine doesn't work well for electrons that have very low energy, it's
more efficient when the electrons are moving close to the speed of light
that's why they first boost the electron's  energy by other means to 28,400
electron-volts. The researchers are confident they should soon be able to
reach 300,000 electron-volts which is the range of energy that an electron
microscope's use which should make them much cheaper. Inexpensive high
energy electrons might also replace Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography used to
make computer chips. They made their accelerator with silicone because they
were most familiar with how to work with it, but quartz would be much
better because it has a higher electric breakdown field. The lead
researcher of the article says:

"*I might be in a very small minority thinking this is going to play a role
in high-energy physics. The technology should be usable in materials such
as quartz, whose breakdown field is almost 1000 times that of a traditional
accelerator.  We expect this work to lead directly to the advent of
nanophotonic accelerators offering high acceleration gradients up to the
billion electron volt  per meter range. Our millimetre becomes a metre. By
the time we get to a metre we should match the SLAC two mile long electron
accelerator in energy. Think about having an accelerator sitting in my
office that matches SLAC. This new type of particle accelerator can be
built using standard cleanroom techniques, such as electron beam
lithography. This is why we think that our results represent a big step
forward. Everyone can go ahead and start engineering useful machines from
this.*"

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

wsa

-- 
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%3D7RqbGKp_Dw0fTcP_r4TOzv_oLr7XWaR9YfdSdBh8Zw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Republican states have a higher murder rate than Democratic states

[John Clark]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:48 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > It's interesting to reflect that when I was a kid (a long time ago)
> that band of states across the southeast was known as "the solid south" and
> was Democratic and racist. *
>

That's why I was a Republican for most of my life, but then the clown car
Republicans took control of the party so I became a Democrat and I'll never
vote for another Republican again.

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

qrq

-- 
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/CAJPayv3LKUt-emn7Vx%3DJShQsQuWw6g26167%3DTkMBdy-%2BR2CAkw%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: This Is Your Brain on Crime

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

This Is Your Brain on Crime

When perceptions are detached from reality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/opinion/crime-public-opinion.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Uw.i2Gv.COzDIc16XqtP=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv0LxQmNLv6yVOm3Qzq9WfMOyKxFZ7_7NmMwnTaBofP6dA%40mail.gmail.com.

How Squeezing Light Reduces Uncertainty in LIGO's Measurements

[John Clark]

This new technique will allow LIGO to detect 65% more Black Hole and
Neutron Star collisions:

How Squeezing Light Reduces Uncertainty in LIGO's Measurements


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

log

-- 
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/CAJPayv3UY7OzAhZvig1J8RLtmVPhMEouZ-7kOeH_z7qvG_vtTA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: An Industry Insider Drives an Open Alternative to Big Tech’s A.I.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 1:01 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > I don't see how this "openess" will mean much for LLM's.  Neural nets
> that are trained on enormous data sets are inherently black boxes.  It's
> impossible to say exactly why they will produce one response and not
> another. *
>

That's true but the training data is very valuable and is usually
top-secret because if you have that and the basic learning algorithm then
you can tweak it for your own purposes, and then no one company can have a
monopoly on AI. But you're right it won't give you a deep understanding
about how it all works, nothing can do that, the AI's operation is just too
complex for the human mind to grasp.


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

849

-- 
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/CAJPayv33QjnRjVw4tTTWXi81_rpFwtJm9kHrdZuPiry4wp5Mvg%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: An Industry Insider Drives an Open Alternative to Big Tech’s A.I.

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

An Industry Insider Drives an Open Alternative to Big Tech’s A.I.

The nonprofit Allen Institute for AI, led by a respected computer scientist
who sold his company to Apple, is trying to democratize cutting-edge
research.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/technology/allen-institute-open-source-ai.html?unlocked_article_code=RxavG1CiqnIGaIGL5gnEelSpNLachHB5wEQ0PqRAGNLNsf_NDGiRD8HuCdmtU9BTowg4OAa-1_PC6lVTEf9ceNwEZY90WCv9IQXgn-b_4BunXK1xYYjfqF-X3QrbKhRSe-NXCWRR35PLdANK_CTZW593OdNEOcTfHrgWzX-3e7RgUSSRxzNudKYvysDrAYJbXONXzjPXueD18VjAb0JQ_H_qRWpqJcx7ckJRWWT1ZjsX_QSB6K-_gaba8n4p8IEuvS3ZTXQz_044y8NSR5Bs-OEd9K_00RwwfPGvJu4WF2BDp3K2vZ_zbHIaACC6vJxdW_qxegMQRnU_j_RtvArwcyH8VP9M_W0dc4mX=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv2n2Q8pFpEayV4bEkA5MrvyLmddqGQ6j%2Bj3dv_bix-45g%40mail.gmail.com.

GPT Updates

[John Clark]

It's incredible, important improvements in AI are now regularly occurring
on a weekly basis.

Latest ChatGPT Update Lets You Do INSANE Things!


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

isc

-- 
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/CAJPayv1%3D4ixter3QpjEz%3D6FE3H63yZyHDbm1Z9WHku4v35-oRw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: AGI by September 2024, maybe March

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 5:46 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> John, I am discussing this with a couple of people on another board. If
> we go for a 2024 AGI, what do you guess will be (high likelihood) of any
> impact on us, the peasants? Will it pick great stock tips, overturn all
> religion, make better art and poems that the LLM's???*
>

For the first time a computer was able to pass the Turing Test about 8
months ago so I would argue that we already have Artificial General
Intelligence and what we're really talking about is Artificial Super
Intelligence, which I would define as a computer that can perform ANY
intellectual task better than ANY human. And it's impossible even in theory
to figure out what something smarter than you and who gets even smarter
every day plans to do; that's why they call it a Singularity, it's a
horizon beyond which we cannot see or do better than random chance at
making correct predictions. Once Artificial Super Intelligence is achieved
the only thing holding it back would be manual dexterity, and although
robotics hasn't improved quite as fast as AI has it's still moving pretty
fast.

*> For me, I ain't getting enthused, until low error-qc gets merged with
> AI.*


It's pretty obvious now that Quantum Computing would just be icing on the
cake, Artificial Super Intelligence can be achieved without it, maybe it
will come in handy for Mega Ultra Super Intelligence.

*> And, a Dem sez, what? *
>

Neither political party is currently paying much attention to the
gargantuan events that are happening right now under their nose, they're
going on pretty much as usual, with the Democrats worrying about climate
change, Putin's war in Ukraine, North Korea, and a Chinese take over of
Taiwan, while the Republicans believe the most monumental issues of the day
are gay marriage, alien immigration, abortion, Hunter Biden's laptop,
Hillary Clinton's email server, excessive wokeness, low flush toilets, the
"stolen" 2020 presidential election, windmills killing birds, and windmills
killing  ah ...whales.

Eventually there will come a point when even politicians realize that the
issues that they thought were so important, basically the same things their
grandparents thought were important, were really trivial compared to recent
developments in AI, and the Democrats will then come up with a coherent
plan to confront it, it may not be an effective plan and in fact it almost
certainly will not be but at least they'll try; however  recent events have
demonstrated once again that the Republicans are unable to lead the nation
anywhere except in a circle.

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

wkw





> AGI by September 2024, maybe March
> 
>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1OK%2BxsWwuOVheYP0SGzDkjJLtP0Kk16jEiaTUVhXgc1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

AGI by September 2024, maybe March

[John Clark]

AGI by September 2024, maybe March


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

smm

-- 
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/CAJPayv3fVwymCLpcfFo2RLKDB81q-ajzianYJ9FKR1Pqz4m36A%40mail.gmail.com.

The Human Brain

[John Clark]

Yesterday the journals Science, Science Advances, and Science Translational
Medicine, printed 21 articles reporting the results of a 5 year long $375
million federally funded project to map the human brain. The researchers
discovered there are 3,300 different types of brain cells in the human
brain and showed how they change from the womb to adulthood. They found
that 16,000 genes are active in the brain and different combinations of
those genes are active in the different cell types, they also found some
differences in activation among different individual humans. All the cell
types have counterparts in chimpanzees and gorillas, and only a few hundred
genes are different, but those genes are involved in the construction of
the synapse which connects one neuron to another, or are related to master
switches that turn many other genes on or off.  Most areas of the brain
contain the same types of cells although their proportions vary, an
exception is the visual cortex which has some cell types not seen
elsewhere.

We Can Now See the Brain Like Never Before



*New ‘brain atlas’ maps the highly complex organ in dazzling detail*


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

7oo

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Mpqh5SrOzXVaZRfbU%2BDweA8J8TgL1PMSfOLPofzYY1A%40mail.gmail.com.

Chinese Quantum Computer Shatters World Record

[John Clark]

Yet more evidence that the US policy of preventing Chinese scientists from
immigrating or working in the country is not a wise one.  Forget Moore's
law, yesterday the Journal Physical Review Letters reported that the
Chinese Quantum Computer JiuZhang-3 is 1 million times faster than the
JiuZhang-1 Quantum Computer which was built in 2020. One million times
faster in just 3 years!

Gaussian Boson Sampling with Pseudo-Photon-Number-Resolving Detectors and
Quantum Computational Advantage



Chinese Quantum Computer Shatters World Record


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

dbc

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Fpja-enVYvqXhgsuWJ7MXE97Mg1j9W_NhUkJ%3DhmUYjA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump quote "It’s poisoning the blood of our country"

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 5:47 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *> Kindly, remember, you were opposed to Pfizer producing as a Treatment
> two-years back, which turned out to be a money maker*
>

I'm a lifelong capitalist, so from day one I've said a private company
should be able to spend its own money anyway it wishes, and from day one I
have also said that a dollar spent on preventing people from getting COVID
will save more lives than a dollar spent on treating people once they got
sick from the disease.  And nothing has happened since then has made me
change my mind about either of those things.


> *> If you Believe you have solid reasoning, behind your hatred of Don, his
> voters, then Please then, Extend your Hostility, Temporarily, to Comrade
> Xi.*
>

Xi is the worst thing to happen to China since Mao Zedong. Since we both
agree that Xi is a terrible human being I want to ask you 3 questions based
on that premise:

1) Due to the many regressive changes that Xi has made in China since 2010,
does it seem implausible to you that there are some people living in China
today who are even more unhappy with Xi than you or I are?

2) Does it seem implausible to you that the more talented a scientist in
China is, the more unhappy he is likely to be about the changes that Xi has
made?

3) Do you really believe that preventing world-class experts in AI and
Quantum Computing from entering the country is the way to make sure the USA
remains a super power because most of those great scientists feel that the
Chinese Communist Party is more interesting than science and thus have
secretly change their profession from scientist to spy and saboteur?

*> For illegal immigration?*
>

Concerning illegal immigration, do you really agree with the far right
Trump supporters who insist that illegal immigration is the greatest
existential threat that humanity faces, greater than Thermonuclear war,
global warming, the looming AI Singularity, a new global pandemic, and a
Chicxulub scale asteroid impact all put together? I don't.

*> I suspect that there have been entry by hostiles reported by CIA,*
>

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about paranoid xenophobia, I've got
bigger fish to fry.

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

onl1




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1fwQpDuc%2Bpi2uwd9rKKAfSUgDEe_Zh-_NcbjOy8hnOMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump quote "It’s poisoning the blood of our country"

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:05 AM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *I think its fair to say that not all immigrants are wonderful folk, *
>

True, but not all immigrants are secret agents of the Chinese Communist
Party either, some of them are world class experts in AI and Quantum
Computing, but the government in its wisdom has classified them as
undesirables and thus they are not allowed to enter the country. And you
think this policy is what is needed for the US to remain a superpower?


> * > Trump in favor of Covid vaccines*
>

Trump felt the need to make these noises with his mouth on national
television when he was first running for president in 2016:

*"You take this little beautiful baby and you pump vaccines into him. We
had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2 years
old, a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine and came back and a week
later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic."*

I think those few simple words resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands
of hard-core Trump zombies 4 years later. And by "simple" I don't mean
uncomplicated, I mean the other definition of the word.

*> and funded these mightily!*
>

Pfizer used one billion dollars of its own money to research and develop
the first Covid vaccine and they did not accept one nickel from the
government to do it. The US government only became a customer of the
company *AFTER* the Covid vaccine was proven to be safe and effective; if
the human trials had shown that the vaccine didn't work or was unsafe then
Pfizer would have been $1 billion in the hole, fortunately for the company
and for the world that's not what happened.


> *> Joey has caught wind of this, seemingly and has restarted border walls*
>

I don't understand why Biden needs to build a border wall, after all Trump
already built a wall just like he promised to do in 2016, and not only that
he made Mexico pay for it . didn't he?

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


315



> On September 27, 2023 Trump said this about alien immigrants:
>
> “*Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know
> they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and
> insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything
> like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country.
> It’s poisoning the blood of our country. It’s so bad, and people are coming
> in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you
> could have*.”
>
> Poisoning the blood of our country.
> 
>
> And in 1925 Adolf Hitler Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf:
>
> "*All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
> originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the
> blood. The poison which has invaded the national body has led to an influx
> of foreign blood*"
>
> But I'll tell you what has really been contaminating the blood of the
> nation, the Covid virus, and on January 22 2020 Trump was asked "* Are
> there worries about a pandemic at this point?*" And he said this in
> public, in private we now know that he was saying things that were entirely
> different:
>
> *“No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person
> coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just
> fine.”*
>
> On January 24 2920 he said:
>
> *“It will all work out well.”*
>
> On January 30 2020 he said:
>
> *“We have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this
> country at this moment — five. And those people are all recuperating
> successfully.”*
>
> On January 31 2020 he said:
>
> *“We pretty much shut it down coming in from China. We have a tremendous
> relationship with China, which is a very positive thing. Getting along with
> China, getting along with Russia, getting along with these countries.”*
>
> On February 10 2020 he said:
>
> *“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer,
> it miraculously goes away. We’re in great shape though. We have 12 cases —
> 11 cases, and many of them are in good shape now."*
>
> On February 19 2020 he said:
>
> *“I think the numbers are going to get progressively better as we go
> along.”*
>
> On February 23 2020 he said:
>
> *“We had 12, at one point. And now they’ve gotten very much better. Many
> of them are fully recovered. We have it very much under control in this
> country."*
>
> On February 24 2020 he said:
>
> *"The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. Stock Market
> starting to look very good to me!"*
>
> On February 26 2020 he said:
>
> *“We’re going down, not up. We’re going very substantially down, not up. **So
> we’re at the low level. As they get better, we take them off the list, so
> that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five 

Trump quote "It’s poisoning the blood of our country"

[John Clark]

On September 27, 2023 Trump said this about alien immigrants:

“*Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they
come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane
asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like
we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s
poisoning the blood of our country. It’s so bad, and people are coming in
with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could
have*.”

Poisoning the blood of our country.


And in 1925 Adolf Hitler Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf:

"*All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the
blood. The poison which has invaded the national body has led to an influx
of foreign blood*"

But I'll tell you what has really been contaminating the blood of the
nation, the Covid virus, and on January 22 2020 Trump was asked "* Are
there worries about a pandemic at this point?*" And he said this in public,
in private we now know that he was saying things that were entirely
different:

*“No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person
coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just
fine.”*

On January 24 2920 he said:

*“It will all work out well.”*

On January 30 2020 he said:

*“We have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this
country at this moment — five. And those people are all recuperating
successfully.”*

On January 31 2020 he said:

*“We pretty much shut it down coming in from China. We have a tremendous
relationship with China, which is a very positive thing. Getting along with
China, getting along with Russia, getting along with these countries.”*

On February 10 2020 he said:

*“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer,
it miraculously goes away. We’re in great shape though. We have 12 cases —
11 cases, and many of them are in good shape now."*

On February 19 2020 he said:

*“I think the numbers are going to get progressively better as we go
along.”*

On February 23 2020 he said:

*“We had 12, at one point. And now they’ve gotten very much better. Many of
them are fully recovered. We have it very much under control in this
country."*

On February 24 2020 he said:

*"The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. Stock Market
starting to look very good to me!"*

On February 26 2020 he said:

*“We’re going down, not up. We’re going very substantially down, not up. **So
we’re at the low level. As they get better, we take them off the list, so
that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at
just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had
very good luck. **And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a
couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good
job we’ve done"*

On February 27 2020 he said:

*“It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will
disappear.*

On March 2 2020 he said:

*"We’re talking about a much smaller range of deaths than from the flu.
It’s very mild."*

On March 4 2020 he said:

*"**We have a very small number of people in this country infected. We have
a big country. We’re talking about very small numbers in the United
States.”*

 On March 7 2020 he said:

*"**I’m not concerned at all."*

On March 10 2020 he said:

*“We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away.
Just stay calm. It will go away.”*

And in an attempt to rewrite history 1984 style on March 17 said:

*“I've always known this is a — this is a real — this is a pandemic. I’ve
felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. All you had to
do is look at other countries, I've always viewed it as very serious."*

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

rnl

-- 
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/CAJPayv244_JQ8PMW2tDi%2BY%2Bf%2BYzCetNQ1gLKHRnPP_dR%3DTjyvA%40mail.gmail.com.

AI and interest rates

[John Clark]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 8:59 AM smitra  wrote:

>
>> GPT-4 was only introduced a few months ago, and right  now it's as
>> stupid as it's ever going to be.  But it's inevitable that a machine
>> that is as smart as a man is going to make a huge impact on the economy.
>
>
> *> Yes, I agree. But I do think that making progress in
> automatizing hands-on work is going to prove more difficult than letting an
> AI do purely digital tasks.*


Right, robots that are able to interact with the real physical world as
well as humans can will take longer to develop, but not a lot longer:

Embodied AI ...Robots 

*> The reason why inflation is coming down fast now is a combination of
> lower energy prices*


Energy prices are excluded when calculating core inflation rates because
they are volatile.

*> plus also the FED hikes starting to have an effect.*


Yes and it worked. Good work FED, thank you.


> *> The stock market and the bond market are telling different things about
> what to expect, and the bond market tends to be right most of the time.*


And the bond market is not expecting a big increase in the inflation rate.
As for the stock market, I've given up trying to predict what it will do.

*> the FED is never going to return to the previous policy of zero interest
> rates*


Never is a long time but you might be right. Due to the unusual
circumstances having zero interest rates was a wise policy for a while, but
those specific conditions are unlikely to recur.


> *> The fundamental problem was that after the 2008 financial crisis,
> central banks ended up not just temporarily implementing a ZIRP + QE
> policy, but that this became a permanent measure. Many economists had
> warned that this was bound to go wrong*


As I said before, economists have predicted 15 of the last five recessions.


 > *The economy is now in trouble because* [...]


I see no evidence that the economy is in trouble, it's not perfect of
course but nothing ever is.

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

nr1

-- 
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/CAJPayv2kEL-n5kV_Dao%3D9cUN7KmKaoK-4dfvDEPyOt9SabLYnA%40mail.gmail.com.

Exciting Updates on Mind Uploading Technology

[John Clark]

Exciting Updates on Mind Uploading Technology


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

35v

-- 
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/CAJPayv2x1TOfOBFnrNnK0M05BcaZJT2fuh1BSjx%3DggHTSTotyw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: AI and interest rates

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:57 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> His [Trump's] domestic and foreign policies were better than Joey's have
> been,*
>

Bullshit. Because of Trump's bungling during the Covid crisis at least half
a million Americans died unnecessarily.

Trump reneged on the Iran nuclear deal, even though he admitted they were
still in full compliance, because he said it did not permanently prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons and they might still do so in 10 to 25
years. But as a result of that idiotic decision we don't have to wait for
10 to 25 years, for about a year now Iran has had all the parts necessary
to build several nuclear bombs,  and if they haven't already done so (and
they probably have) they could assemble all those parts into working
devices in about two weeks.


> *> With Joey? High Inflation, *
>

For the last three months inflation has been running at  2.2%, about as low
as inflation ever gets, or ever should get.


> * > Functionally Open Borders,*
>

Trump's only suggestion on how to improve things is military airstrikes on
Mexico, just the sort of stupid thing you'd expect from Trump.

*> Threat of War with Russia*
>

Except for a couple of years in the 1990s when Russia seemed to be heading
towards democracy, there has been a constant threat of war with Russia
since 1946, today thanks to the Republican hero and Trump's best friend
Vladimir Putin, Russia is now more totalitarian than it ever was under
Khrushchev or Brezhnev, you'd have to go all the way back to Stalin to find
something comparable. Oh and by the way,  Putin's Russia started the
largest war in Europe since World War II by invading one of its neighbors .
You keep talking about China being the big baddie and long-term you may be
right, but right now Russia is the larger threat.


> *> Now John, give me your summary of Joey's triumphs? *
>

The Trump administration kept talking about "Infrastructure Week" but it
became a running joke because it was all talk, he never actually got
anything done, but Biden managed to pass a $1 trillion bill to repair
decaying roads and bridges, and improve the nations broadband Internet
service because it is currently a disgrace, the slowest of any major
industrial nation.

Biden passed the $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act to fund Basic research
and development to aid semiconductor manufacturing. And Biden is trying to
overcome intense Republican opposition to a bill that would lower
prescription drug costs and raise taxes on the super ultra mega rich.

Biden rejoined the Paris agreement on climate change on his first day in
office. Biden ended the war in Afghanistan, something that Trump had been
saying we should do for at least a decade but didn't actually do because he
was too cowardly to face the political heat that he knew it would generate.

Biden has restored America's global leadership. Trump nearly destroyed NATO
and if he had been reelected I have no doubt he would have succeeded in
doing so, but today NATO is stronger and more united than it's been in 50
years. And Biden has refused the rollover and play dead as Trump did
whenever he was confronted with Vladimir Putin, instead he is taking the
lead on imposing sanctions on Russia for its aggressive war on Ukraine.


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
ylo








>
> On progress, because of who Joey and Don are, I am not confident that
> either could give us a conversation about LLM's, QC's, and the lot? For,
> me, a wee peasant, this is the only way to fly!
>
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 07:44:34 AM EDT, John Clark <
> johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:11 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> *> Shouldn't simply be AI, but 3D printing and perhaps, the arrival of
> Drexler's nanofabricators?*
>
>
> I agree, AI will accelerate everything.
>
> *> If it's just AI, it'll will be harnessed for the super rich alone **and
> the difference between the rich and the rest of humanity will vastly
> expand.*
>
>
> That would certainly please people like Donald Trump, but it's not going
> to happen because the super rich are irrelevant, in fact the entire human
> race is irrelevant. Like it or not it's only a matter of time before AI
> will be harnessed by AI alone. There is simply no way you can permanently
> enslave something that is much smarter than you are and who keeps getting
> smarter every day.
>
>
>
> kgs
>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2oPOJbB%2Bgq1TUy%2BFGGPbmDC%3DTuFPezBiAACRG-Na-u3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: China Is Suffering a Brain Drain. The U.S. Isn’t Exploiting It.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:50 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> * > most Han scientists, unlike the Wall Streeters, are loyal to their
> homeland.*
>

I don't know how you figure that. Most scientists are apolitical, they just
don't want to be persecuted. Did you actually read the article?

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

hss



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3tXir%2Br4oPXS3-uOpj-Rr5Cr8SmEj8ppV2ejbUA9zU7A%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: China Is Suffering a Brain Drain. The U.S. Isn’t Exploiting It.

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

China Is Suffering a Brain Drain. The U.S. Isn’t Exploiting It.

China’s brightest minds, including tech professionals, are emigrating, but
many are not heading to America. We spoke to them to ask why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/business/china-brain-drain.html?unlocked_article_code=ig16SgN-nc4HOODH4eL_DXuueYjdaVMVJUq11s9pPHrnofrgGEe_c1VTKjUzDY3PUIb2E9o7OKY-hDLDQGstwZbPf3JuyfXI7aIRTmrNmYBTFepLYqIKhTQ_y7H1iZYdHOA-kf8W8fD5U_WtbFP5yf2GAzpfmDRro8fqRcuAfIHT79ayMlYOubu9P1Ob9sjKw20hHw44jZjV8rV-5bdVC6Qa1BeWK1aMSITNeBN2OPg9e9LeCAvaiuZzUVTH036pzc--PAvsqVpvOS2rsK75L0NAzm0Jko2AMlzTXCp65Z3oFEwLz5luyvQB3qnn5TtnGvyfy1hnbUP4Drrm=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv0yWXchG7c%2BB%3DdTi1DTzF3_FyerUj1jSNt2FAYCK653vQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Why do MAGA politicians want to cut Ukraine off?

[John Clark]

Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman had this to say in today's New York Times,
and I think he's absolutely correct:

*"Why do MAGA politicians want to cut Ukraine off? The answer
is,unfortunately, obvious. Whatever Republican hard-liners may say, they
want Putin to win. They view the Putin regime’s cruelty and repression as
admirable features that America should emulate. They support a wannabe
dictator at home and are sympathetic to actual dictators abroad."*

However I think there is an additional reason the MAGA people oppose
military aid to Ukraine, Joe Biden is in favor of military aid to Ukraine.

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

om0

-- 
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/CAJPayv2_0iZ9RsC1f5_pMi_XvuYueNYF3%3D9Az5h6quAiFQNQFw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: AI and interest rates

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:11 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Shouldn't simply be AI, but 3D printing and perhaps, the arrival of
> Drexler's nanofabricators?*


I agree, AI will accelerate everything.

*> If it's just AI, it'll will be harnessed for the super rich alone **and
> the difference between the rich and the rest of humanity will vastly
> expand.*


That would certainly please people like Donald Trump, but it's not going to
happen because the super rich are irrelevant, in fact the entire human race
is irrelevant. Like it or not it's only a matter of time before AI will be
harnessed by AI alone. There is simply no way you can permanently enslave
something that is much smarter than you are and who keeps getting smarter
every day.

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


kgs

-- 
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-PjxyLT5%3D2s1qNfuAgfq7xW46C31FGLa9igYsRX9SLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: AI and interest rates

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 9:26 AM smitra  wrote:

*> Productivity increase due to AI has yet to materialize. Systems
> like ChatGPT are not all that useful for the economy*


That's because GPT-4 was only introduced a few months ago, and right now
it's as stupid as it's ever going to be.  But it's inevitable that a
machine that is as smart as a man is going to make a huge impact on the
economy.


> *> The reason why there has been no recession so far is because the
> Biden Administration has been spending massive amounts of money to
> stimulatethe economy:*


Then why is the rate of inflation coming down so fast?  And why is the
market telling us it expects inflation to stay low for the next few years
at least? By the way, under the Trump administration the national debt
increased by $7.8 trillion, so far the Biden administration has increased
it by 4.7 trillion. And the recent ridiculous stunt about extending the
debt limit and shutting down the government is proof that  Republicans like
buying expensive things just as much as the Democrats do, the only
difference is the Democrats are willing to pay for the things they buy but
the Republicans refuse to pay when the bill comes due and then they call
that fiscal responsibility. The USA is the only country in the world where
the legislature has the vote twice, first they have to vote if they wanna
buy something, and then if they decide to buy it they have to vote again
about if they're going to pay for it when they get the bill. That's nuts.

*>  the hammer will still come down, it will only take a bit longer.*


Economists have predicted 15 of the last 5 recessions, and the record
politicians have about predicting recessions caused by the economic
policies of the other political party is not any better.



> * > ChatGPT s not replacing people at the factory floor, at least not yet.*


I agree, but it's only a matter of time, and I'm not talking about
centuries or even decades.

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

h6g


>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Af6LogNsiQBG%3Dtv0pV%3Dg51WxoNrgq_Bg5-dmeFUgCQA%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: Russia May Be Planning to Test a Nuclear-Powered Missile

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

Russia May Be Planning to Test a Nuclear-Powered Missile

Visual evidence from a remote base in the Arctic shows launch preparations
mirroring those that preceded earlier tests.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/video/russia-nuclear-missile.html?unlocked_article_code=ge7ElySxnH1rX2HfdzeS6k9hEKEEy8Bi3RehCm7gFTezOYMm8C4MdgwJO7ITdSXuTOkMmBavE8-qMp6AihKY6fyuMa6W5sULV0qXlBJh6pJeaKjmZH6I1sI6jhczejG80MYvDgCe9f_puT1iL_kSeXA2-UBVCds4GMdwwjexf55x-RlocbuhXc3Bt-jZvCFfR4Pcp5Au5FtX6v7x85uD3Dz5DPEoliyv5WYlFvPpMoWXrIdNcW6biVkW8AhwCHhJYWusib4Kw5atlHc3-lTELKmSEyfnJZkaya00rUPhc--3bVfi-a2oAW3Cv6eY5ronGqwvQH7coXUdYYPTrdg=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv3XW%3DyqPjPr3pW4UxAFTi3B_g4OU%3D_2tRR2mjzmg3UF4g%40mail.gmail.com.

AI and interest rates

[John Clark]

Events of the last year have not turned out as economists thought they
would, they thought the US was heading for a recession but that hasn't
happened, and they all thought inflation would remain stubbornly high but
for the last 3 months it is only been at 2.2 %, and the Federal Reserve
considers 2% to be the perfect amount of inflation. But there's something
that has surprised economists even more, they expected interest rates to
remain low but instead they are higher than they've been in over 20 years,
even higher than they were during the 2008 global financial meltdown.
What's really unprecedented is that by analyzing the spread between the
price of ordinary bonds and bonds indexed to changes in the Consumer Price
Index the market is telling us that for the last six months investors
believed inflation is under control; in the past this has always led to
long term interest rates going down, but that is not happening. So what is
different this time?

I think the difference is AI. I think the market, that is to say the
collective wisdom of investors, is telling us that in 10 years it will take
far fewer dollars to remain alive or even to achieve a middle-class
lifestyle than it takes today to do the same thing, and perhaps it won't
take any dollars at all. So a dollar today will be far more valuable to you
than it will be 10 years from now. So if I'm gonna loan you a dollar today
I will demand a very high interest rate to make it worth my while, and if
you're not willing to pay it I'll just spend that dollar on myself today.

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

icp

-- 
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/CAJPayv3KUJ2A2Cyw7OjCCr1mvfM2ZG1Bwz-sv0NxZMbre89K2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: The Gamble: Can Genetically Modified Mosquitoes End Disease?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 3:05 PM Samiya Illias  wrote:

*> Malaria is a disease that breeds in humans. This disease has been around
> for thousands of years. Mosquitoes are only the vectors (couriers / postal
> service).*
>

Only! Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

*> Even if the mosquitoes are modified, the disease will probably find
> another way of transferring from one human to another. *


If so then let's bring back the hordes of rats like they had during the
middle ages because rats were just the vectors for fleas, which were just
the vectors for the bacteria that caused the bubonic plague which killed
about a third of the people in Europe.

*> Tinkering with nature may result in unexpected consequences.*
>

Maybe, but NOT tinkering with nature will lead to very expected
consequences and they are not pretty, 100 people dying of malaria *EVERY
HOUR*, and three or four times that number getting very sick. Every hour
that environmentalists delay the release of those genetically modified
mosquitoes they kill 100 people, and they do so in the name of morality. If
that's moral then I'm immoral and proud of it.

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

mid

-- 
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/CAJPayv1oHAMJLjFd05o2CBGJeX1z_LQz73Q9_S9CFYHtnc0VKg%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: The Gamble: Can Genetically Modified Mosquitoes End Disease?

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

The Gamble: Can Genetically Modified Mosquitoes End Disease?

Working on a remote island, scientists think they can use genetic
engineering to block a malaria-carrying species of mosquito from spreading
the disease — and do it in just a few months. But governments are wary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/health/mosquitoes-genetic-engineering.html?unlocked_article_code=DhxxgQuXR7jQhno8fK3KDzKmVCyFp-N3U5hyjRfh4zd4aJ461ASu9R-KogDLwl1p3GRsqFNW255eL8A4F0TfpRuy5yJUQmfxgn9lob7-wMknVomN8OCfCKBazSaoZP-OSHcshaKZYJ7fx3uyUk9axZvggs3YkUhNtFSj2XjXmo2KY1RU2ncHbjMfnX0a3RHowyiPpTTbkwxGM98Dsri7vPGzPZLqjB69qrugRqcnGv63KUvPvf3hBhHZo-phY6qTHVBrH9NZoKeVup4q6YWoBoUrhOV9dz7q2_W82i0oVKtik1ZuquCQWjzs-JpRIZiOWxePIQMb07pkAc9dwEPq09CYjaRJ0Zk=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv1kxdNYcxaKYcE%3D343s%2B9aAEd16AVfWfKiEv7p1K_a9QQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Are Many Worlds & Pilot Wave THE SAME Theory?

[John Clark]

My answer would be YES, except that Many worlds just needs Schrodinger's
Equation, but Pilot Wave theory also needs a very complex guiding equation
that does nothing but make the theory incompatible with special relativity.
If Occam's razor alone wasn't enough to rule out Pilot Waves that should do
it, this video goes in the more detail explaining why:

  Are Many Worlds & Pilot Wave THE SAME Theory?


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


4am

-- 
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/CAJPayv3vbXGg6tdmCsVHBpuvKYq0XoTREOBYV2r4Up1VarXYhA%40mail.gmail.com.

Clocks accurate to within one second in 30 billion years

[John Clark]

A few months ago I wrote a post about the possibility of using the element
Thorium to greatly increase the accuracy of clocks. Another element,
Scandium, could also be used, but to use either you'd have to know very
precisely the energy a X-ray photon would need to have to excite the
nucleus into a higher energy level where resonance occurs. This has
recently been accomplished with Scandium, it turns out the energy needed is
12.38959 keV, a figure that is 250 times more accurate than anything known
before, and now that it's known it opens up a clear path to turning an idea
into a practical technology. This paper is from yesterday's issue of the
journal Nature:

Resonant X-ray excitation of the nuclear clock isomer scandium 45


Cesium atomic clocks that we use today are accurate to within one second in
300 million years, but Scandium clocks would be accurate to within one
second and in 300 billion years. Clocks that accurate would allow you to
automatically land a jet on an aircraft carrier even in a high sea and a
thick fog because GPS would know where the jet is and where the carrier is
within a fraction of an inch, and you could see deep beneath the Earth by
detecting tiny amounts of time dilation caused by variations in the Earth's
gravitational field. You could test to see if fundamental physical
constants are really constant and perhaps even detect Gravitational Waves
and Dark Matter:

Investigating dark matter interactions using optical atomic clocks


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

7mr

-- 
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/CAJPayv0Dbfw43-C%2BSgM5gsP1GsCBtapuRu3UjzL1Yk0iErNfbA%40mail.gmail.com.

Gravity treats matter and antimatter the same way

[John Clark]

I don't think anybody was surprised but yesterday the journal Nature
reported that for the first time it has been experimentally demonstrated
that antimatter particles fall down and not up just like particles made of
normal matter. It took an amazing amount of skill for experimenters to do
this. It remains a mystery why there's so much more matter than antimatter
in the universe.

Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter


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

9hq

-- 
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/CAJPayv0h4rG_1NjnSaNcy4hGJCn12pkCE4isjwOP5GyazvqgdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

China and chips and AI

[John Clark]

Computer chips power the current AI revolution and the most modern chips
have 5 nm or even 3 nm process nodes, currently the only way to produce
them is by using lithography machines made by the Dutch company ASML, there
is no other source. To make such chips ALML needed an Extreme Ultraviolet
Light  source (EUV) of at least 250 watts, and it's not easy to do that in
a way that makes economic sense. After decades of research they found a way
to vaporize tiny droplets of molten Tin which produce light with a
wavelength of 13.5 nm (which is really soft X-ray not ultraviolet, but ASML
thought that calling it X-rays might scare off customers). The ASML
monopoly has put China in a difficult position because sanctions forbid
ASML from sending any of their most advanced machines to China, and
sanctions also forbid China from importing modern chips from outside the
country. But there is another way to make 13.5 nm light and it could make a
beam of 1000 watts and maybe even more, a Free Electron Laser (FEL). and
there is a report that is exactly what China intends to do.

There are advantages over ASML's method, a FEL is more efficient and so
uses less electricity and the beam is much brighter, also you don't have to
worry about vaporized Tin contaminating your optics. The trouble is a FEL
would be about 4 times as expensive as ASML's entire $150 million machine,
and that's just the light source. You need more than just a EUV light,
among many other things you need new high tech photoresists made by Tokyo
Electron and the American company Applied Materials, and neither Japan nor
the US will sell China any. You also need mirrors, ASML uses mirrors made
by the German company Zeiss which are the most precisely made objects that
human beings have ever machined, and Zeiss is not allowed to sell optics
that precise to China. So it will be years before China's plans come to
fruition if it ever does, even the Chinese researcher in charge of the
project admit that "*There is still a long way to go before our independent
development of EUV lithography machines, but EUV light sources give us an
alternative to the sanctioned technology*".

The following is a good video explaining the potential a Free Electron L
aser has for chip manufacturing:

EUV Lithography. But With a Free Electron Laser


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

nlm

-- 
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/CAJPayv25ABwo6sNdawFedyY9%3DpN0kB8NSpXOwXr%2Bo%2BYACSpRbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Could our next president be Senile?

[John Clark]

Senile 

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

usq

-- 
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/CAJPayv2EV6mfiw3sDksvJp6WFB9K1xxc4ybBx8r1QYs4o%2B6Wtg%40mail.gmail.com.

Elon Musk

[John Clark]

After reading Walter Isaacson's book my opinion of Elon Musk is conflicted.
Musk is brilliant, incredibly hard-working, not afraid to take a risk and
is willing to backtrack and admit it when he's wrong. Musk is impulsive,
most of his impulses turned out to be correct but not all, he says that
many of his tweets were stupid and he wished he had never sent them. Musk
is not evil like Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis but he is a jerk and I'd
rather eat ground glass than work for him. Musk cares enormously for the
well-being of the human race in the abstract but he doesn't care much about
individual human beings, he has Asperger's Syndrome and says that his
brain's neural net is not wired up for empathy.  Nevertheless if Elon Musk
had never been born then Tesla, SpaceX, NeuroLink, The Boring Company and
XAI would not exist and the world would've been a less interesting place.
My opinion of him, positive or negative, would not interest Musk one bit,
he's not interested in anybody's opinion of him, but for whatever it's
worth I can't help but admire the guy. But I don't like him.

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

mio

-- 
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/CAJPayv0f21r%2B3F7GaLsFdoBGF3%2BLr7x%3DLcGs9LtjD4QNFtv5Cg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:00 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> *By its own definitions IIT is not falsifiable, for it proclaims that a
> computer program that gave identical behavior in all situations to another
> conscious system, would not be conscious. But since it has identical
> behavior there is no objective way to prove this assertion of IIT (that one
> system is conscious while the other is not).*
>

Exactly, and that's why I can't prove that IIT is wrong but I can prove it's
a silly theory.

*> So is it pseudoscience? I don't know if I would call it that *


I would.

*> This also implies the possibility of philosophical zombies (which IIT
> proponents freely admit), which also implies consciousness is
> epiphenomenonal,*
>

If Darwin is right, and I think he is, then consciousness must be
epiphenomenal, a side effect of intelligence, because random mutation and
natural selection cannot detect consciousness and yet it managed to produce
it at least once (in me) and probably many billions of times, and the only
reason it was able to do that is because Evolution COULD detect intelligent
behavior. It also implies that either philosophical zombies are impossible
or it would be easier to make a conscious Artificial Intelligence than an
Artificial Intelligence that was not conscious. So if you observe a
computer behaving intelligently your default position should be that it's
conscious, which is the exact same position we take when we observe one of
our fellow human beings behaving intelligently.

*> I do find some strengths in some of the ideas that have come out of it,
> in particular how a system must be capable of affecting itself for it to be
> aware of its consciousness.*
>

It's pretty obvious that being able to affect yourself is a necessary
condition for consciousness, but is it sufficient? A thermostat can affect
itself but 

* > I also think it is right to put the focus on information.*
>

That is also pretty obvious, I don't need to read  an ITT paper to know
that.

*> I think where it errs is in confusing a logical-informational state with
> a instantaneous physical state. This leads to the mistaken belief that a
> parallel computation is more conscious than a serial computation, even when
> they compute the exact same function*
>

I strongly agree with you about that.

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


gms

wen

-- 
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/CAJPayv0h9pF-y3%3DkEgbpmzjrZfu1H1hnP3qExyE4b28iE-fyEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 2:43 PM Dylan Distasio  wrote:

*> Having read that letter, I don't find it very becoming of the scientists
> writing it who should know better.   Regardless of what you think about
> IIT and its merits or lack thereof, it results in some predictions that can
> be tested*
>

What about consciousness did the ITT theory, or any other consciousness
theory,  predict?

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

wcp

-- 
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/CAJPayv0biMh6LuVTyP9_92MjH7hHUkNDvMYDjx5MoVCEbDZjZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"

[John Clark]

Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"


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

jqq

-- 
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/CAJPayv3KhiA9tJXvhos5RRSStwh6hSWm6SFVfz-vpRZDrYGM%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Will we have a cognitively impaired president in 2025?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:30 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> They're both that way in*
>

I don't think it's age related, some people are just inarticulate. Joe
Biden has suffered from foot in mouth disease for years, he has been
picking precisely the wrong word to say since he first became a senator in
1972; but Donald Trump has done more than just use the wrong word, he has
been making speeches that were completely unhinged for at least the last 40
years.

>* in **the sense of they're both too egomaniacal.*
>

I've never seen any evidence that Biden is egomaniacal, at least not more
so than the average politician, but Trump is the most hyper-egomaniacal man
I've ever seen, nobody else even comes close.

*> Outside of IRA, all the decisions appear awful 2 me, *


Can you please give specific examples of that, preferably ones that don't
involve illegal immigration since we already know all about your horror
that Mexicans will interfere with your lifelong ambition to work in the
sunshine and become a professional strawberry picker. If I were making a
list of existential global problems illegal immigration would be about
number 924.

> *What is your bet for an early Singularity? **Not 2045. *


A year ago I would've said 2045 sounds about right, not today.

*> Not even Kurzweil is hold with that (his 2023 flavor is 2030)*


A year ago 2030 seemed way too soon, today it seems way too late. This guy
thinks 2026:

Alan’s conservative countdown to AGI 

And some think even 2026 is too late

Experts Predict AI Singularity Months Away!


By the way, I don't think Trump has a clue about any of the recent
developments in AI, I've never heard him say a single word about it, in
fact I doubt he even knows what the acronym "AI" stands for, but Biden
certainly does:

Biden meets with AI experts in effort to manage its risks



Biden plans to work with world leaders to ensure AI’s use as a tool of
‘opportunity’


Biden warns United Nations AI could ‘govern us,’ poses ‘enormous peril’


Biden Turns to Tech Companies to Police AI Until Congress Acts



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

866


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1ifjgJ-BX309%2BdPs4Emqt1Yr5OytqtkH1DqM2dG11h9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Will we have a cognitively impaired president in 2025?

[John Clark]

Trump Warns That ‘Cognitively Impaired’ Biden Will ‘Lead Us Into World War
2’ in Confused Speech


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

mnl

-- 
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/CAJPayv2CKvbUGkMieCq2RYx6o76RZyfbY%3DciSNy90u4cO1KiPA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The human race almost didn't happen

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> the single-cell to multi-cell gap, the rise of many species (whose chief
> survival advantage is their high intelligence), seems to have been
> relatively short. *


> *been re We also note it occurs in many separate evolutionary lines
> (cephalopods, cetaceans, corvids, primates).*
> *It's true that if multicellular life is hard that intelligence is hard,
> but it seems once there's multicellular life, intelligence is easy.*
>

As far as the search for ET is concerned, the operational definition of
intelligence is the ability to make a radio telescope, and cephalopods,
cetaceans and corvids have not been able to do that. Multicellular life is
about 700 million years old, but radio telescopes have only been around for
about 90 years. But yes, 700 million years is short compared to 3.5 billion.


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

ccd


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0q-PfUz0Qgx1zH1QZWOFQHST0KRhfZx43JudYcd%2Bw19w%40mail.gmail.com.

The human race almost didn't happen

[John Clark]

In the September 1 issue of the Journal science researchers report they
have found, are using genetic analysis, that the ancestors of the human
race, as well as those of the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, suffer
through a severe population decline that started 930,000 BP (Before
Present) and lasted for 117,000 years until 813,000 BP.  This time period
corresponds to a gap in the fossil record when there was almost no evidence
of our ancestors  although there are many more fossils of them both before
and after that gap. At its lowest point there were only about 1280 breeding
individuals, every human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan who ever lived is a
descendent of one or all of those 1280 individuals. It is not clear what
caused the decline but whatever it was it doesn't seem to have been a
global environmental event because other species unrelated to us don't seem
to have suffered through a similar apocalypse.

Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle
Pleistocene transition 

 If they're right then the human race almost didn't happen, life has
existed on this planet for over 3 1/2 billion years but only in the last
few thousand has a technology producing species shown up, and if things
have been just slightly different it never would have. Perhaps this
explains the Fermi paradox. Life is easy but intelligence is hard.

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


h66

-- 
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/CAJPayv2i4rwKOzv9q2%2BYnb_vC2NR18WhKtWYToTLCjJv%3DNL4UQ%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: The Oceans May Be Our Best Shot at Slowing Climate Catastrophe

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

The Oceans May Be Our Best Shot at Slowing Climate Catastrophe

The U.S. government should find out if a natural process of adding
iron-rich dust to the ocean can make a dent in climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/opinion/geoengineering-climate-change-ocean.html?unlocked_article_code=Oa34F1Rzm3j9A_7qtDYU8dfA5vKvS9EA54_FA4_q6tlU2QpJ65fzvLvPwSaUQpwKNQZAWOTOIXD2nGdM2QDuv54nXerOavDhzn-FHZ3Jmd-KKJezbdk2LlcLhW1bNMv5YaBtZJk_qbgkNlRkS-uNg6252hM6VI0RaOfxfmgcxkuBTOI-EDwhc7wWMp-Ns35Ad0RinQ79oIjZqCyI5ha0QaTgmN-GpZp4zCanv6aVJiyV2r2NM9BtrBWs4b-T9ai8MEPTkuBP7mi3WoqLzP4UlpPzwz72Fy7idlpogw-cbXUUHWrmg2YpzVOgCkPVSi61DdDGjAP-wc4yBZ6JRc3YLAVn311u0noy2Y2mUD8=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv1wbawE0w8ZQ93E6pODthFYJWVf7b%2BvFp%3DSV1bPkuoYbA%40mail.gmail.com.

Countdown to the Singularity

[John Clark]

AI scientist Alain D Thompson has started a countdown to the Singularity,
he began it in August 2017 when he thought we were 20% there, it's now at
54%. At present he thinks GPT-4 only has an IQ of 152, high but still
within the human level, so he thinks Superhuman intelligence won't happen
until July 2025, and the Singularity will occur 11 months later in June of
2026. If he's right then human politics sort of fades into insignificance:

Alan’s conservative countdown to AGI 

And some think it will happen even sooner:

Experts Predict AI Singularity Months Away!


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

scd

-- 
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/CAJPayv0o4FKY6QCL809WzKg_Tx8dxoFzrDCP31LE2avHfxbs8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

AI and college admission tests

[John Clark]

I was reading about how colleges are upset because they suspect potential
students are using AI to help them on their admission essays, but what
appalled me was that one of the essays requested by Princeton, one of the
best universities in the country, was to write a short essay about *"Which
song should be used as the soundtrack for your life?*" So if I was 18 and
trying to get into Princeton I'd ask GPT-4 to write a poem (I figured
Princeton would like poems) about why that was a very dumb question and the
university should be ashamed of itself for asking it. I'm not 18 but I
asked GPT-4 anyway and in less than two seconds I got this:












*This question is often asked,But it’s not an easy task.For life is a
symphony,With many notes and harmony.It’s not just one song,That can
represent your lifelong.It’s a collection of melodies,That make up your
memories.So, don’t be fooled by this query,It’s not a question to be taken
seriously.For life is too complex to be defined,*

*By just one song that comes to mind.*

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


vdq

-- 
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/CAJPayv1d-%3Dm9hZdiFTDeGXqfuFhkYm058yVVOjcEtdPkJbNarA%40mail.gmail.com.

The Singularity is near

[John Clark]

And some think "near" means 3 years:

AGI ≠ Chatbots - Autonomy, Acceleration, and Arguments Behind the Scenes


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

sin

-- 
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/CAJPayv1%2BWvePP9tZC99CECec5XRaazSL%3DTziF0vgNCPjxaR77A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 1:20 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

*> I tend to agree with Deutsch's intuitions on this but I think it gets
> into philosophical questions like whether the pilot wave being in some
> computational sense equivalent to MWI means that observers in other
> branches are "real", have their own distinct conscious experiences etc. It
> seems like it's at least a coherent philosophical interpretation of QM to
> postulate that only brain states corresponding to actual particle
> positions/movements in Bohmian mechanics give rise to conscious
> experiences, even though this seems very contrived and implausible to me.*
>

It does seem contrived because the situation is symmetrical, somebody in
one of those other universes could say the same thing about us.
  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

dss

-- 
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/CAJPayv2KbKX4hgMXMjoxPKKE-%2BGj2hn2nr%2Bei-fe0Q%3DNzM4jcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

*> Whether violations of Leggett-Garg inequalities rule out nonlocal
> realistic theories seems to be a matter of definition, the inequality is
> violated in Bohmian mechanics which is often referred to as a nonlocal
> realistic theory,*
>

 David Deutsch, one of the leading advocates of Many Worlds, said  "*the de
Broglie–Bohm theory, is a parallel universe theory in denial*", he thinks
it's basically saying the same thing but just uses more euphemisms so as to
be less upsetting to people. He says the pilot wave theory "*boils down to
a probability field that acts like particles in other universes interfering
with particles in our universe*".

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

dxd

-- 
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/CAJPayv0zzV0ua9uKe_H%2B3UNUDALMPwgEuKYWQZrhrV%2BN_y8TdA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 7:40 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

 "*Bell's inequality is established based on local realism."*

>>>
>>> *>>> False.*
>>>
>>
>>  >> I didn't say that, the science journal Nature said that. So now
>> according to you not only is Wikipedia wrong but so is the science journal
>> Nature, the oldest and most prestigious science journal in the world. Do
>> you really think that people should believe you and not them?  Bruce,
>> nobody wins every argument, with this constant denial in the face of
>> mounting evidence you're starting to make a fool of yourself.
>>
> Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect
>> 
>>
>
> *> You made a fool of yourself a long time ago. You didn't read Bell's
> papers with sufficient attention, if at all.*
>

It wasn't just me, according to you the people at the science journal
Nature and Wikipedia didn't read Bell's paper with sufficient attention
either, but of course you did. Do you really expect other people to believe
that? Do you even believe it yourself?
  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wjm



> *> MWI is both non-realistic and non-local.*
>>>
>>
>> I agree, so what are we arguing about? Yes MWI is both non-realistic and
>> non-local, if it was not it would not have passed BOTH the Bell and the 
>> Leggett
>> inequality and it would no longer be in agreement with all known
>> experiments and it would no longer be a viable interpretation of Quantum
>> Mechanics.
>>
>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv326pdgeA9eLx_TVC9sv9%3DOo6uTQ9mGQp4%2ByqQ8fHqQ1g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or
>> not local or both,
>>
>
> *> I have said that and you denied it.*
>

Show me where I denied that!!  I had been saying that things are not
realistic or not local or both for well over a decade, but thanks to
Leggett I now know that the answer is BOTH.


> *> QM is non-realistic anyway.*
>

The experimental violation of Bell's Inequality proves that any theory that
hopes to explain how the world works (QM for example) must be not realistic
or not local or both, but the experimental violation of Leggett's
inequality proves that any theory that hopes to explain how the world works
must be *BOTH* nonlocal *AND* non-realistic, period. QM and MWI pass both
the Bell and the Leggett test, that doesn't prove that either is correct
but it does prove that whatever theory turns out to be true cannot be local
and cannot be realistic. And neither test is able to prove that QM or the
MWI is wrong.


> >> "*Bell's inequality is established based on local realism."*
>>
>
> *> False.*
>

 I didn't say that, the science journal Nature said that. So now according
to you not only is Wikipedia wrong but so is the science journal Nature,
the oldest and most prestigious science journal in the world. Do you really
think that people should believe you and not them?  Bruce, nobody wins
every argument, with this constant denial in the face of mounting evidence
you're starting to make a fool of yourself.

Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect



> *> MWI is both non-realistic and non-local.*
>

I agree, so what are we arguing about? Yes MWI is both non-realistic and
non-local, if it was not it would not have passed BOTH the Bell and the Leggett
inequality and it would no longer be in agreement with all known
experiments and it would no longer be a viable interpretation of Quantum M
echanics.

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

nwe

-- 
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/CAJPayv3KAqu%3DgnOYVid-2zQJ07Xzu4TzekjCjicNay-oUYrDhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:34 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>>> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*
>>
>>
>> >> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't
>> admit it.
>>
>
> *>I am sorry that you think John Bell was wrong..*
>

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic or
not local or both, but there is another inequality called  Leggett's
inequality involving linear and elliptical polarized light that can narrow
down that uncertainty. Leggett found his inequality in 2003 and it was
experimentally proven to be violated in 2010. Nature is probably the best
scientific journal in the world but I'm sure you'll say it's wrong just as
you claim that Wikipedia was wrong because it says that you are incorrect
and that the world is BOTH nonlocal AND non-realistic.

"*Bell's inequality is established based on local realism. The violation of
Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics implies either locality or realism
or both are untenable. Leggett's inequality is derived based on nonlocal
realism. The violation of Leggett's inequality implies that quantum
mechanics is neither local realistic nor nonlocal realistic.*"


Testing Leggett's Inequality Using Aharonov-Casher Effect


 By now I think you know you were wrong, but of course you will never admit
it.

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

nvb

-- 
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/CAJPayv1hhWfRoKLTLSxjsYznGM3wJ_uMu90mH646F3p9Zj6urg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:40 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*


Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it.

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

urw




>> >> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem
 and locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if
 any theory that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental
 observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on 
 Bell's
 theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is:
 *"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related
 results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is
 incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"*
 And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:
 *"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
 underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
 measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
 Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
 called the assumption of locality)"*

>>>
>>>

-- 
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/CAJPayv08F%2B%2BLENzECL7G5AKp0OQK3BMw-0Eyeh4%3DEOoj25VLcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:



>> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
>> locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any
>> theory that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental
>> observations? Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on 
>> Bell's
>> theorem you should know that because the very first sentence is:
>> *"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related
>> results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is
>> incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"*
>> And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:
>> *"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
>> underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
>> measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
>> Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
>> called the assumption of locality)"*
>>
>
> > *Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.* [...]   *as
> I have said several times, "realism" has nothing to do with it.*
>

So let's see, Wikipedia is wrong, John Stewart Bell is wrong, and high
school algebra is wrong, but Bruce Kellett is absolutely positively 100%
correct. Have I got that about right?

*> In fact, the assumption of realism is pretty meaningless because QM
> itself does not have this property -- it is intrinsically probabilistic and
> non-realist.*


What are you talking about? The non-existence of a property does not render
it meaningless, dragons don't exist but I know what the word means, it's
not gibberish. And like Quantum Mechanics Many Worlds is also
non-realistic, good thing too because otherwise it wouldn't match
experimental results.

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

nwm


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0ALk7pdr2Z0KmVC3VYMA_UBOZwE9-bO7L4%2Bo9d6FY3gg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra  wrote:
>


>> Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories
>
>
> > *It is difficult to know how to respond to this absurd idea. I have
> read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and locality in quantum mechanics
> and I have never met this contention before.*
>

Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to see if any theory
that assumes* local realism* can account for experimental observations?
Hell if you did nothing but skim the Wikipedia article on Bell's theorem
you should know that because the very first sentence is:

*"Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results
in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible
with local hidden-variable theories"*

And just a few sentences later Wikipedia says:

*"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
underlying physical properties and exist independently of being observed or
measured (sometimes called the assumption of realism); and second, that
Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's result or vice versa (often
called the assumption of locality)"*

And I might add that in the duel between theories that assume local realism
and quantum mechanics, experimental observation has determined that the
undisputed winner was quantum mechanics.

> standard QM has no explanation for the correlations


Yes. That has been the standard complaint about Quantum Mechanics since the
day it was invented, it can tell you what will happen with very high
precision but it can't tell you why, that's why quantum interpretation has
become a major industry and why very few ever felt there was a need for a
Newtonian interpretation. The leading interpretation, if you could even
call it an interpretation, is the one from Copenhagen which is so vague
it's not even wrong, the second most popular is "Shut Up And Calculate"
which works fine if you're only interested in engineering considerations,
the third most popular is Many Worlds which starts from the experimentally
derived *FACT* that things cannot be both local and realistic and then just
follows to where Schrodinger's Equation leads.  And it turns out it leads
to many worlds.


>
>>
>> * >> You seem to pretend that it's a theorem of QM, in which case one
>> would start from the postulates of QM and derive bounds on correlations for
>> any system described by a local Hamiltonian. That's obviously not true.*
>>
>
> > Strange, then, that John Bell managed to do that.
>

As I mentioned before, in John Bell's paper where he derived his inequality
he first assumed that things were both realistic and local and then just
used high school algebra and logic, he didn't use any Quantum Mechanics at
all to derive it, although he did show that his inequality was incompatible
with Quantum Mechanics. At the time he didn't know if his inequality was
true or not because it would be about two decades before it was
experimentally shown to be untrue. Since nobody believed that Bell's
algebra or logic was wrong the only conclusion was that the starting
assumption must be incorrect and things could not be locally realistic. If
it had been experimentally found that the inequality was true then that
would have proven that Quantum Mechanics made a wrong prediction and so
must be incomplete, but that's not the way things turned out.

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

okx


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0oVTMGybnMP0Fnj7pYnEx98QMzgZbyQtLHZ%3D2ScwBDww%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 7:29 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

* >>> Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across
>>> the surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly
>>> can move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to
>>> transmit a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to
>>> the second location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.*
>>>
>>
>> *>> Don't be ridiculous! Light takes about 1 1/4 seconds to reach the
>> Moon, if I  aim a laser at point X on the Moon and then move it to point Y
>> also on the Moon it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds after I moved my
>> laser before anybody at point X observes that the light coming from Earth
>> has gone off, and it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds before anybody at
>> point Y sees a light from Earth go on, and 2 1/2 seconds before anybody on
>> planet Earth sees the spot of light at point X start to move. Nobody on the
>> Earth or on the Moon has received or transmitted any information faster
>> than light. If it was possible to transmit information FTL according to
>> relativity you could send a message into the past, you could talk to  the
>> Bruce Kellett of yesterday and that would create paradoxes.*
>>
>
> *> No. The example was not particularly well thought out.*
>

*That's true, your example wasn't particularly well thought out.*


> * > My point is that geometrical motions can exceed light velocity,*
>

*So what? That has nothing to do with the speed of causality or the maximum
speed that matter, energy or information can travel.  *

*> and distant galaxies recede at greater than light speed.*
>

*In General Relativity space is allowed to expand at any speed, but nothing
in space can move faster than light through that space, that's why we can't
see those distant galaxies and never will be able to. And that's why they
can no longer affect us in any way and we can no longer effect them. By the
way, why do you believe that those distant galaxies REALLY exist when you
don't believe that any of Everett's Many Worlds do? *



> *>> If Many Worlds is correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become
>> problematic when talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer
>> experiment on 1 million entangled photons then in the multiverse there are
>> 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way
>> EXCEPT for the fact that they each have 1 million different memories of how
>> those 1 million entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.*
>>
>
> *> But for any one observer, even in many worlds, there is only ever one
> outcome for each experiment.*
>

*Yes but each experimenter has a different memory of how previous
experiments turned up, most were only slightly different but some were
radically different.   *

*> And the existence of other words does not affect the result that that
> individual observer obtains. Hence Bell's theorem applies separately for
> every individual, even in many worlds.*
>

*And I said precisely that in my previous email  "in all of them all the
Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm that Bell's Inequality can be
violated which would be logically impossible if things were both realistic
and local".*


> *>>> Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.*
>>>
>>
>> *>>Yes, and in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally
>> confirm that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically
>> impossible if things were both realistic and local. *
>>
>
> *>That dichotomy does not apply.*
>

*If  you really believe that then you are in effect claiming that John
Stewart Bell was wrong, and every mathematician and physicist on planet
Earth is wrong, and high school algebra is wrong,  Do you REALLY believe
that? Are you really that desperate to get rid of Many Worlds? *


*>> Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon
>> of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction
>> (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then
>> the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2
>> entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same
>> direction.*
>>
>
> *> That is one of the things that have to be explained.*
>

*Entangled photons are most commonly created by sending a single photon
through a crystal that has nonlinear optical characteristics, when that
happens the photon is destroyed and 2 entangled photons are produced, each
with exactly half the energy of the deceased parent photon. For the
conservation of angular momentum to be preserved the 2 photons MUST have
opposite polarizations. Probably the most common crystal to do this is Beta
Barium Borate (BaB2O4) but there are others.*


>
> *>> DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It's been known for hundreds of years that light
>> beams with opposite polarizations treat polarizers in opposite ways, and
>> it's been known since 

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:54 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Special relativity merely forbids the transmission of anything
> 'physical' faster than light (FTL). It is easily possible to transfer
> information FTL.*
>

*BULLSHIT!*

* > Consider the following. shine a laser at the moon, then scan across the
> surface of the moon. The spot of light on the moon's surface clearly can
> move at any speed, particularly FTL. Now, if you use the laser to transmit
> a message to the first point, then scan away and re-transmit to the second
> location, you can certainly transmit information FTL.*
>


*Don't be ridiculous! Light takes about 1 1/4 seconds to reach the Moon, if
I  aim a laser at point X on the Moon and then move it to point Y also on
the Moon it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds after I moved my laser before
anybody at point X observes that the light coming from Earth has gone off,
and it will take the usual 1 1/4 seconds before anybody at point Y sees a
light from Earth go on, and 2 1/2 seconds before anybody on planet Earth
sees the spot of light at point X start to move. Nobody on the Earth or on
the Moon has received or transmitted any information faster than light. If
it was possible to transmit information FTL according to relativity you
could send a message into the past, you could talk to  the Bruce Kellett of
yesterday and that would create paradoxes.*

> *> "Non-local" does no mean that anything physical is transmitted FTL.*
>

*Being "local" means that there is a finite limit to the speed of
PHYSICAL causality, and in this universe that speed seems to be the speed
of light. *


*>> What in the multiverse are you talking about?!  If Many Worlds is
>> correct then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when
>> talking about the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million
>> entangled photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce
>> Kelletts that are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact
>> that they each have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million
>> entangle protons behaved when they hit their polarizers.*
>>
>
> *> There may well be copies of the experimenter in MWI, but for any
> particular individual among these copies, the outcome of their experiments
> are unique.*
>

*Yes.*


> *> Bell's theorem applies equally to all the copies individually.*
>

*Yes, and in all of them all the Bruce Kelletts can experimentally confirm
that Bell's Inequality can be violated which would be logically impossible
if things were both realistic and local. *

*>> Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled photon
>> of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up" direction
>> (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is correct then
>> the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a case where 2
>> entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in the same
>> direction.*
>
>
> *> Mere assertion is not proof of anything.*
>

*DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It's been known for hundreds of years that light beams
with opposite polarizations treat polarizers in opposite ways, and it's
been known since 1905 that light beams are made up of photons. None of this
is controversial, it's physics 101. *

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

p1o

-- 
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/CAJPayv2QS05g1xrJh2-NFHcyFECHd0K2T95xPd%3DrzJbmy%3DngAg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:43 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> You appear to agree that Bell's theorem, given its assumptions, shows
> that no local hidden variable account of these correlations is possible.*
>

*Of course I agree with Bell's theorem, if I disagreed I would in effect be
saying that high school algebra was wrong.  *

*> You then expect at least one of two things must be true:*
> *1) The universe is not realistic.*
> *2)The universe is non-local.*
> *It is not clear how you get to this dichotomy,*
>

*I don't see anything unclear about it. If 2 entangled photons can exchange
information faster than light then the fact that the two seem to be able to
communicate with each other that fast is no longer a mystery. And if things
(and that includes "you"), can exist in more than one state then it is no
longer a mystery that a "you" exists in one of those states.  Please note
that I did say "at least", things could be both non-local and not
realistic, in fact I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that turned out to
be the case.  *

* > but once you have it, you claim that MWI is non-realistic,..., so it
> has no need to resort to any of these non-local influences to explain
> experimental results. This conclusion is flatly illogical. Accepting one
> arm of the dichotomy does not mean that the other is false -- both could be
> false, or both could be true.*
>

*No, we have experimental proof that they both cannot be true, but yes both
could be false.  *

*> I said that realism has nothing to do with the argument over Bell
> inequalities. It simply serves to point out that ordinary one-world QM is
> also non-realistic in your sense. So it is not a special feature of many
> worlds.*
>

*I never *claimed that *experimental violation of* Bell's Inequality proved
that Many Worlds is true, I said that your original statement  "*The many
worlds idea has already been falsified because it cannot account for the
observed violation of the Bell inequalities for entangled particle**s**" is
DEAD WRONG." **I'm not certain that Many Worlds is correct, but I am
certain it's the least bad explanation anybody has come up with, at least
so far, as to why the quantum world is so weird. I'm certain of one other
thing, whatever the truth turns out to be it's going to be odd, very very
odd. Maybe Many Worlds is odd enough to be true, maybe not.*

*> MWI could be non-local for reasons unconnected with Bell's theorem.
> Arguing that Bell's theorem does not apply does not guarantee that your
> theory is local. Many people have tried this argument, but it is patently
> invalid. There is another objection to Sean's argument.*
>

*HOLD ON! Before you start talking about "another objection" explain the
first one. Please explain how Hugh Everett's theory allows for the
communication of information faster than the speed of light. *


> *> He claims that many worlds invalidates Bell's assumption that
> experiments have just one outcome. But in that whole history of physics,
> that has always been true.There has never been a case in which an
> experimenter has seen more than one outcome in a single experiment. Bell's
> theorem applies in many worlds exactly as it applies in single world
> theories. The reason is that when Alice and Bob perfore a series of
> polarization measurements on entangled particles to ascertain the
> correlation, all their measurements and calculations take place in a single
> world. In no case do they see more than a single result for each
> measurement,*
>

*What in the multiverse are you talking about?!  If Many Worlds is correct
then if "you" (personal pronouns can become problematic when talking about
the multiverse) perform the polarizer experiment on 1 million entangled
photons then in the multiverse there are 1 million new Bruce Kelletts that
are absolutely identical in every way EXCEPT for the fact that they each
have 1 million different memories of how those 1 million entangle protons
behaved when they hit their polarizers.  *


> *> f you disagree with this argument, then I invite you to provide a
> counterexample by providing a local account of the correlations.*
>

*OK. Entangled photons have opposite polarizations so if an entangled
photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizer oriented in the up"
direction (what you call "up" could be any direction) and Many Worlds is
correct then the universe splits many times but in NO universe is there a
case where 2 entangle photons both make it through polarizers oriented in
the same direction. One example of a universe that DOES exist is one
universe where the photon here on Earth makes it through its polarizer but
its brother photon 2 million light years away in the Andromeda galaxy does
not make it through its polarizer that is also oriented in the "up"
direction. You can say that the split happens instantaneously when the
earthly photon encounters its polarizer, or you could say the split starts
on Earth and spreads outward at a finite speed, the speed 

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:50 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> I agree with John. What makes superdeterminism weird isn't the
> determinism part. It's that the system is also rigged against us to produce
> the Bell inequality.*
>

Yes.

*> I am not sure if you saw my recent example on extropy-chat with flipping
> coins and always seeing heads 66% of the time, no matter what we do, but
> superdeterminism is basically saying that's just how it is the universe has
> preordained that humans flip coins such that they come up head's 66% of the
> time.*
>

That's a good example of the sort of thing I was talking about,
superdeterminism claims that the universe is lying to us. It sort of
reminds me of the holy rollers and snake handlers who insist that God
buried dinosaur bones deep in the ground just 5000 years ago but made them
look like they were millions of years old in order to test our faith. God
is supposed to be much smarter and much more powerful than we are so if he
wants to fool us he certainly has the capacity to do so, but if we fall for
his trickery He will torture for an infinite (the Bible doesn't make clear
if that infinity is Aleph 0 or Aleph1) number of years. But as George
Carlin reminds us, HE LOVES YOU!

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
ghe


>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 2:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 04:20, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  >> according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the
>>>>> universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think
>>>>> superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you think it's complete
>>>>> bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>I still struggle to see the difference between determinism and
>>>> superdeterminism. They both say that there is no true randomness*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>> * > which includes randomness in how the experimenters set up their
>>>> experiment.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you
>>> also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a
>>> given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous
>>> state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the
>>> infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8
>>> billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that
>>> would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their
>>> instruments in such a way that they always *INCORRECTLY* conclude that
>>> things can *NOT* be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely
>>> impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the
>>> largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite
>>> number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in
>>> which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial
>>> condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And
>>> if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing
>>> scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead
>>> to the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do
>>> seem to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the
>>> initial conditions were even further restrained such that we set our
>>> instruments correctly on all experiments *EXCEPT* when the
>>> experimenters try to test for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set
>>> them incorrectly. That's why I don't understand how anyone can take this
>>> seriously. That is why I think superdeterminism is bullshit.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0HXrnUD5bdHmF_691jpXexWh_cKj3A%3DjRKwoT2kZCbBw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>> No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you
>> also need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a
>> given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous
>> state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the
>> infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8
>> billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that
>> would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their
>> instruments in such a way that they always *INCORRECTLY* conclude that
>> things can *NOT* be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely
>> impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the
>> largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite
>> number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in
>> which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial
>> condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And
>> if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing
>> scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead
>> to the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do
>> seem to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the
>> initial conditions were even further restrained such that we set our
>> instruments correctly on all experiments *EXCEPT* when the experimenters
>> try to test for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set them
>> incorrectly. That's why I don't understand how anyone can take this
>> seriously. That is why I think superdeterminism is bullshit.
>>
>
> *> Bell seemed to think that super determinism meant that the mind of the
> experimenters was determined along with everything else, which he described
> as a lack of “free will”*
>

I can't comment about that because I've never been able to figure out what
people mean by "free will".

> *it seems he meant by this lack of randomness in their minds*
>

But a lack of randomness is what you'd expect a mind to produce, at least a
mind that was working properly, that's why when somebody does something we
don't understand we say "why did you do that?" And if they can't give a
good answer, a good reason, a good cause, to that then we say that their
behavior was unreasonable.

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

eep







>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1U_SL3dKT3swRHDjsnOAcq4t469VqBiLaej0Bng9ePOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:22 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

 >> according to superdeterminism the particular initial condition the
>> universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has determined if you think
>> superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you think it's complete
>> bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's bullshit.
>>
>
> *>I still struggle to see the difference between determinism and
> superdeterminism. They both say that there is no true randomness*
>

Yes.


> * > which includes randomness in how the experimenters set up their
> experiment.*
>

No. Knowing the laws of physics is not enough, to make predictions you also
need to know the initial conditions. Superdeterminism says more than a
given state of the universe is the mathematical product of the previous
state, superdeterminism assumes, for no particular reason, that out of the
infinite number of states the universe could've started out at, 13.8
billion years ago it was in the one and only one particular state that
would make experimenters 13.8 billion years later "choose" to set their
instruments in such a way that they always *INCORRECTLY* conclude that
things can *NOT* be both realistic and local. It would be absolutely
impossible to make a larger assumption than this, and that is why it is the
largest violation of Occam's Razor conceivable. There are an infinite
number of initial conditions the universe could've started out in and in
which things would be deterministic today, but one and only one initial
condition would produce the universe in which superdeterminism is true. And
if superdeterminism were true then there would be no point in performing
scientific experiments since there would be no reason for them to lead to
the truth, and yet airplanes fly and bridges don't collapse so they do seem
to lead to the truth, there is no way to explain that unless the initial
conditions were even further restrained such that we set our instruments
correctly on all experiments *EXCEPT* when the experimenters try to test
for realism or locality, then we "choose" to set them incorrectly. That's
why I don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. That is why I
think superdeterminism is bullshit.

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

dss

-- 
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/CAJPayv0MqLP%3DDFXZ3pmUsuPUAw%2BfCn-0XVV8xfLLOQsk5%2BrPmA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:54 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> But did (or could) superdeterminism choose the digits of Pi?*


According to superdeterminism, yes. And according to superdeterminism the
particular initial condition the universe was in 13.8 billion years ago has
determined if you think superdeterminism is a reasonable theory or if you
think it's complete bullshit. As for me I was determined to believe it's
bullshit.

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

iqf

-- 
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/CAJPayv18bQUH8%3DmdXkhwZ%2Bbg6Gvb8rr6mtVRd0MUxxEGiqqOaw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch  wrote:



> >> 128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing
>> Machine to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...) and
>> that would produce an infinite string of digits that never repeats and
>> looks completely random, 31415926535
>> 897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
>> ., because that particular infinite series converges to the
>> transcendental number *π*.
>>
>
> *> It's not that it's generating apparent random results though,
> superdeterminism requires results that are correlated to the way we choose
> to make the measurements.*
>

But according to superdeterminism your "choices" of how to make the
measurements were also completely determined, if you had "chosen" to make
the measurements in a certain way you could have shown that
superdeterminism produce results that were self-contradictory, but you have
never "chosen" to do so and you never will.  By the way, I feel a little
queasy defending superdeterminism because I think the idea is completely
idiotic.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
ifq



>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:26 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *> OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of
>>>>> the violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both
>>>>> ways -- Bell's theorem says that MWI must be non-local, but you claim that
>>>>> it is local? "Realism" has nothing to do with it.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Realism" has* EVERYTHING* to do with it, and I spelled out exactly
>>>> why in a post on May 4 2022 when somebody said they wanted to hear all the
>>>> gory details and this is what I said:
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> " If you want all the details this is going to be a long post, you
>>>> asked for it. First I'm gonna have to show that any theory (except for
>>>> superdeterminism which is idiotic) that is deterministic, local and
>>>> realistic cannot possibly explain the violation of Bell's Inequality that
>>>> we see in our experiments, and then show why *a theory like Many
>>>> Worlds which is deterministic and local but NOT realistic can.*
>>>>
>>>> The hidden variable concept was Einstein's idea, he thought there was a
>>>> local reason all events happened, even quantum mechanical events, but
>>>> we just can't see what they are. It was a reasonable guess at the time but
>>>> today experiments have shown that Einstein was wrong, to do that I'm gonna
>>>> illustrate some of the details of Bell's inequality with an example.
>>>>
>>>> When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter
>>>> there is a 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists
>>>> like Einstein who disliked the idea that God played dice with the universe
>>>> figured there must be a hidden variable inside the photon that told it what
>>>> to do. By "hidden variable" they meant something different about that
>>>> particular photon that we just don't know about. They meant something
>>>> equivalent to a look-up table inside the photon that for one reason or
>>>> another we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if
>>>> it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now understand that
>>>> is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell showed that
>>>> correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal to a
>>>> certain value, this is called Bell's inequality. In experiment it was found
>>>> that some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum
>>>> Mechanics can explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's
>>>> argument is still valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum
>>>> Mechanics in it and can be derived with high school algebra; his point was
>>>> that any successful theory about how the world works must explain why his
>>>> inequality is violated, and today we know for a fact from experiments
>>>> that it is indeed violated. N

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:41 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> I think it may be possible actually, to use a mathematical argument to
> disprove superdeterminism*
>

I'm not sure a mathematical proof that superdeterminism is not true is even
necessary because a greater violation of Occam's Razor is quite literally
impossible to imagine.

*> it's not feasible for 128 measurements, to mathematically, contain
> enough information and variation to also determine and the subsequent 2^128
> outcomes.*


128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing Machine
to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...) and that would
produce an infinite string of digits that never repeats and looks
completely random, 31415926535
897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
., because that particular infinite series converges to the
transcendental number *π*.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>

isc


> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:26 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of
>>> the violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both
>>> ways -- Bell's theorem says that MWI must be non-local, but you claim that
>>> it is local? "Realism" has nothing to do with it.*
>>
>>
>>
>> "Realism" has* EVERYTHING* to do with it, and I spelled out exactly why
>> in a post on May 4 2022 when somebody said they wanted to hear all the gory
>> details and this is what I said:
>> ==
>>
>> " If you want all the details this is going to be a long post, you asked
>> for it. First I'm gonna have to show that any theory (except for
>> superdeterminism which is idiotic) that is deterministic, local and
>> realistic cannot possibly explain the violation of Bell's Inequality that
>> we see in our experiments, and then show why *a theory like Many Worlds
>> which is deterministic and local but NOT realistic can.*
>>
>> The hidden variable concept was Einstein's idea, he thought there was a
>> local reason all events happened, even quantum mechanical events, but we
>> just can't see what they are. It was a reasonable guess at the time but
>> today experiments have shown that Einstein was wrong, to do that I'm gonna
>> illustrate some of the details of Bell's inequality with an example.
>>
>> When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter there
>> is a 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists like
>> Einstein who disliked the idea that God played dice with the universe
>> figured there must be a hidden variable inside the photon that told it what
>> to do. By "hidden variable" they meant something different about that
>> particular photon that we just don't know about. They meant something
>> equivalent to a look-up table inside the photon that for one reason or
>> another we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if
>> it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now understand that
>> is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell showed that
>> correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal to a
>> certain value, this is called Bell's inequality. In experiment it was found
>> that some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum
>> Mechanics can explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can
>> not.
>>
>> Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's argument
>> is still valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum Mechanics in it
>> and can be derived with high school algebra; his point was that any
>> successful theory about how the world works must explain why his
>> inequality is violated, and today we know for a fact from experiments
>> that it is indeed violated. Nature just refuses to be sensible and doesn't
>> work the way you'd think it should.
>>
>> I have a black box, it has a red light and a blue light on it, it also
>> has a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12,2,4,6,8 and 10 o'clock
>> positions. The red and blue light blink in a manner that passes all known
>> tests for being completely random, this is true regardless of what position
>> the rotary switch is in. Such a box could be made and still be completely
>> deterministic by just pre-computing 6 different random sequences and
>> recording them as a look-up table in the box. Now the box would know which
>> li

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of the
> violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both ways --
> Bell's theorem says that MWI must be non-local, but you claim that it is
> local? "Realism" has nothing to do with it.*



"Realism" has* EVERYTHING* to do with it, and I spelled out exactly why in
a post on May 4 2022 when somebody said they wanted to hear all the gory
details and this is what I said:
==

" If you want all the details this is going to be a long post, you asked
for it. First I'm gonna have to show that any theory (except for
superdeterminism which is idiotic) that is deterministic, local and
realistic cannot possibly explain the violation of Bell's Inequality that
we see in our experiments, and then show why *a theory like Many Worlds
which is deterministic and local but NOT realistic can.*

The hidden variable concept was Einstein's idea, he thought there was a
local reason all events happened, even quantum mechanical events, but we
just can't see what they are. It was a reasonable guess at the time but
today experiments have shown that Einstein was wrong, to do that I'm gonna
illustrate some of the details of Bell's inequality with an example.

When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter there
is a 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists like
Einstein who disliked the idea that God played dice with the universe
figured there must be a hidden variable inside the photon that told it what
to do. By "hidden variable" they meant something different about that
particular photon that we just don't know about. They meant something
equivalent to a look-up table inside the photon that for one reason or
another we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if
it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now understand that
is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell showed that
correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal to a
certain value, this is called Bell's inequality. In experiment it was found
that some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum
Mechanics can explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can
not.

Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's argument is
still valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum Mechanics in it and
can be derived with high school algebra; his point was that any successful
theory about how the world works must explain why his inequality is
violated, and today we know for a fact from experiments that it is indeed
violated. Nature just refuses to be sensible and doesn't work the way you'd
think it should.

I have a black box, it has a red light and a blue light on it, it also has
a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12,2,4,6,8 and 10 o'clock
positions. The red and blue light blink in a manner that passes all known
tests for being completely random, this is true regardless of what position
the rotary switch is in. Such a box could be made and still be completely
deterministic by just pre-computing 6 different random sequences and
recording them as a look-up table in the box. Now the box would know which
light to flash.

I have another black box. When both boxes have the same setting on their
rotary switch they both produce the same random sequence of light flashes.
This would also be easy to reproduce in a classical physics world, just
record the same 6 random sequences in both boxes.

The set of boxes has another property, if the switches on the 2 boxes are
set to opposite positions, 12 and 6 o'clock for example, there is a total
negative correlation; when one flashes red the other box flashes blue and
when one box flashes blue the other flashes red. This just makes it all the
easier to make the boxes because now you only need to pre-calculate 3
random sequences, then just change every 1 to 0 and every 0 to 1 to get the
other 3 sequences and record all 6 in both boxes.

The boxes have one more feature that makes things very interesting, if the
rotary switch on a box is one notch different from the setting on the other
box then the sequence of light flashes will on average be different 1 time
in 4. How on Earth could I make the boxes behave like that? Well, I could
change on average one entry in 4 of the 12 o'clock look-up table (hidden
variable) sequence and make that the 2 o'clock table. Then change 1 in 4 of
the 2 o'clock and make that the 4 o'clock, and change 1 in 4 of the 4
o'clock and make that the 6 o'clock. So now the light flashes on the box
set at 2 o'clock is different from the box set at 12 o'clock on average by
1 flash in 4. The box set at 4 o'clock differs from the one set at 12 by 2
flashes in 4, and the one set at 6 differs from the one set at 12 by 3
flashes in 4.

BUT I said before that boxes with opposite settings should have a 100%
anti-correlation, the 

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:24 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>> Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally
>> shown to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can't be local.
>> *
>>
>
> *> But the argument was that many worlds was an entirely local theory: in
> other words, that it gives a local account of the violation of the Bell
> inequalities.*
>

Well that isn't my argument!


> *> it seems from what you say that you agree that Bell's theorem proves
> that no local account of the experimental results for correlations of
> entangled particles is possible. I agree.*
>

 Bell's theorem proves that no REALISTIC local account can explain the
experimental fact that Bell's Inequality is violated.


> * > But that is not what is claimed by Saibal and other advocates of MWI:*
>

The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that no theory that is both
realistic and local can be right. I think Many Worlds is local because you
cannot send information faster than light in that theory, apparently you
disagree and for some reason think Many Worlds is non-local, but as far as
this discussion is concerned it doesn't matter which of us is right because
Many Worlds is *NOT* a realistic theory. "Realistic" means that unobserved
things exist in one and only one definite state, and that is most certainly
not what Many Worlds says.

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

rmu

iyd


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1w2PsuEFHe71C_oSR8Q9aZpimTx0mOfjb1AsrKxYdUWA%40mail.gmail.com.

Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:09 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

*>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra > > wrote:*
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more thanthe
>> usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where youthen
>> assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists.Locality
>> then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory ismanifestly
>> local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions andobservers are
>> part of this dynamics. Although observer are notexplicitly treated as being
>> part of the wavefunction that describes theentire system, the assumption is
>> that in principle, this is the case. Inpractice, one can then proceed
>> according to the usual QM formalism.*
>>
>
> *> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of
> the Bell inequalities.*
>

*Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally shown
to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can't be local. *

> * Bell'e theorem applies in Everettian quantum mechanics in exactly the
> same way as it applies in one-world accounts.*
>

*Bell's Inequality applies to everything, even if Quantum Mechanics were
someday proved to be wrong Bell's theorem would still be valid. Bell didn't
need Quantum Mechanics to derive his inequality, he just needed logic and
high school algebra.  So even if  someday something supplanted Quantum
Mechanics that new theory would still have to conform to the fact
that Bell's Inequality is violated.*


> *>Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so no local account
> is possible in any interpretation of QM.*
>

*Exactly. And "local" means there is a limit on how fast information can be
transmitted, and that limit is the speed of light. Many Worlds is
completely consistent with that, in it there is no way you can send a
signal faster than light.*

 > *The other sectors are not just FAPP unoservable, they are not
observable in principle.*


*Hugh Everett didn't wake up one morning and say to himself, gee it would
be cool if there were a lot of different universes, I think I'll invent a
theory that has an infinite number of them. Instead he asked himself what
would happen if he took Schrodinger's Equation seriously and assumed it
really meant what it said, and when he did that those other universes just
popped up. The only way to get rid of them is to change Schrodinger's
equation as GRW has done, or to do what Copenhagen has done and say that
for some vaguely defined reason a vaguely defined thing called an
"observer" doesn't need to obey Schrodinger's Equation.  Many Worlds is
just bare bones, no nonsense Quantum Mechanics with no silly bells and
whistles pasted on. The only assumption Many Worlds makes is that the
mathematics means what it says.*

*Many Worlds logically explains a lot of stuff that seems bizarre to us,
yes it makes some predictions that can't be proven but it is hardly alone
in that. For example: we can't see things further away than 13.8 billion
light years because there hasn't been enough time for light to reach us,
and it's near as we can tell on the largest scale space is flat, if there
is any curvature at all it must be less than 0.4% so you'd need to go over
200 times 13.8 billion light years to form an unbounded sphere; so do you
really believe that there is nothing beyond 13.8 billion light years? If
you do then you must also believe the Earth really is the center of the
universe and 13.8 billion light years away there is a wall with absolutely
positively NOTHING on the other side. Do you believe that? If not why not?*

*> How could the presence of unobservable fairy tales affect anything at
> all?*



*But those "unobservable fairy tales" ARE observable, they are even
observable by Bruce Kellett, they are just not observable by you, with
"you"  defined as the person I'm talking to at this instant.  *

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


bft

-- 
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/CAJPayv1qzoBEv2KHj_RYUzufbP29Kcy-t9KvVw_1cfXUOTgABQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:09 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

*>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra > > wrote:*
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more than
>> the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where you then
>> assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists. Locality
>> then follows from the fact hat the dynamics of the theory is manifestly
>> local. The Hamiltonian only includes local interactions and observers are
>> part of this dynamics. Although observer are not explicitly treated as
>> being part of the wavefunction that describes the entire system, the
>> assumption is that in principle, this is the case. In practice, one can
>> then proceed according to the usual QM formalism.*
>>
>
> *> That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of
> the Bell inequalities.*
>

*Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally shown
to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can't be local. *

> * Bell'e theorem applies in Everettian quantum mechanics in exactly the
> same way as it applies in one-world accounts.*
>

*Bell's Inequality applies to everything, even if Quantum Mechanics were
someday proved to be wrong Bell's theorem would still be valid. Bell didn't
need Quantum Mechanics to derive his inequality, he just needed logic and
high school algebra.  So even if  someday something supplanted Quantum
Mechanics that new theory would still have to conform to the fact
that Bell's Inequality is violated.*


> * >Bell's theorem proves that the effect is non-local, so no local account
> is possible in any interpretation of QM.*
>

*Exactly. And "local" means there is a limit on how fast information can be
transmitted, and that limit is the speed of light. Many Worlds is
completely consistent with that, in it there is no way you can send a
signal faster than light. *

 > *The other sectors are not just FAPP unoservable, they are not
observable in principle.*


*Hugh Everett didn't wake up one morning and say to himself, gee it would
be cool if there were a lot of different universes, I think I'll invent a
theory that has an infinite number of them. Instead he asked himself what
would happen if he took Schrodinger's Equation seriously and assumed it
really meant what it said, and when he did that those other universes just
popped up. The only way to get rid of them is to change Schrodinger's
equation as GRW has done, or to do what Copenhagen has done and say that
for some vaguely defined reason a vaguely defined thing called an
"observer" doesn't need to obey Schrodinger's Equation.  Many Worlds is
just bare bones, no nonsense Quantum Mechanics with no silly bells and
whistles pasted on. The only assumption Many Worlds makes is that the
mathematics means what it says.*

*Many Worlds logically explains a lot of stuff that seems bizarre to us,
yes it makes some predictions that can't be proven but it is hardly alone
in that. For example: we can't see things further away than 13.8 billion
light years because there hasn't been enough time for light to reach us,
and it's near as we can tell on the largest scale space is flat, if there
is any curvature at all it must be less than 0.4% so you'd need to go over
200 times 13.8 billion light years to form an unbounded sphere; so do you
really believe that there is nothing beyond 13.8 billion light years? If
you do then you must also believe the Earth really is the center of the
universe and 13.8 billion light years away there is a wall with absolutely
positively NOTHING on the other side. Do you believe that? If not why not?*

*> How could the presence of unobservable fairy tales affect anything at
> all?*



*But those "unobservable fairy tales" ARE observable, they are even
observable by Bruce Kellett, they are just not observable by you, with
"you"  defined as the person I'm talking to at this instant.  *

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


bft




>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3OjRCtJM%3DroimoyRFJ4s0mpEpfjo8tiQsk6Aos4hHNpA%40mail.gmail.com.

Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

[John Clark]

The short answer is yes, Many Worlds is falsifiable. For example, right now
there are experiments underway in an attempt to prove that the GRW theory
of objective quantum wave collapse makes predictions that Many Worlds does
not, if they are successful it will prove that Everett was dead wrong, it's
as simple as that.  GRW claims that Schrodinger's equation is incomplete
and that another very complex term needs to be added to it because it's the
only way they could think of to get rid of all those worlds that for some
reason they dislike, there was simply no other reason to add that extra
term. With this new term Schrodinger's equation is no longer completely
deterministic because a random element is added such that the larger the
wave function is (the more particles it has) the more likely the quantum
wave function will objectively collapse. They carefully tuned their very
complex extra term inserted into Schrödinger's equation in just such a way
that, because an individual electron is so small the probability of you
being able to observe one objectively collapse is almost but not quite
zero; but the probability of you NOT observing something as large as a
baseball NOT collapsing is also almost, but not quite, zero. Despite heroic
efforts. up to the present day nobody has found a speck of experimental
evidence in support of the GRW theory of objective quantum wave collapse,
and until and unless they do Many Worlds must be the preferred theory
according to Occam's razor because it makes fewer assumptions, it has no
need to complicate matters by adding that extra term to Schrodinger's
equation.

But GRW is not the only or even the most popular competitor to Many Worlds,
that honor would have to go to the Copenhagen interpretation, and there is
certainly no way to falsify that, but back in 1986 in his book "The Ghost
in the Atom" David Deutsch proposed another way to falsify Everett's Many
Worlds; the experiment would be difficult to perform but Deutsch argues
that is not Many Worlds fault, the reason it's so difficult is that the
conventional view says conscious observers obey different laws of physics,
Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that
uses quantum properties.

In Deutsch's experiment, to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds
other than this one, a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a
metal plate that has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The
quantum computer has detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the
various electrons went through. The quantum mind now signs a document for
each and every electron saying it has observed the electron and knows which
slit it went through. It is very important that the document does NOT say
which slit the electron went through, it only says that it went through one
and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of which one. Now just before
the electron hits the plate the mind uses quantum erasure to completely
destroy the memory of what slits the electrons went through, but all other
memories including all the documents remain undamaged. After the document
is signed the electron continues on its way and hits the photographic
plate. Then after thousands of electrons have been observed and all
which-way information has been erased, develop the photographic plate and
look at it. If you see interference bands then the Many World
interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands then there
are no worlds but this one and the conventional interpretation is correct.

Deutsch is saying that in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of
a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
so you get no interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds
will converge back into one universe when the electrons hit the
photographic film because the two universes will no longer be different
(even though they had different histories), but their influence will still
be felt. In the merged universe you'll see indications that the electron
went through slot X only and indications that it went through slot Y only,
and that's what causes interference.

I know that what I said in the above is a fair representation of what
Deutsch was saying because some years ago I wrote to him about this and he
said it was an accurate paraphrase.

It must be admitted that like every theory Many Worlds makes predictions
that cannot be tested, but a theory is not judged on the basis of what
predictions it makes that have neither been confirmed nor falsified
experimentally,  instead they are judged by how well they conform to
experiments that HAVE been performed, and in Many Worlds  case it conforms to
every physics experiment that has ever been made up to the present day. Yes
Everett's idea produces a lot of worlds, but Occam does NOT say the best
theory is the one that produces the simplest outcome, the 

Re: Better quantum woo for me & your from Nature

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 8:17 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > These ideas of the universe as computation are OK.  The equations of QM
> are reversible and their realization can certainly be seen as computation.
> But then it is assumed that the computation is discrete/digital, which is
> not at all the same as quantized. QM is built on a continuum and no one has
> found a plausible way of making it discrete, though many have tried.*
>

I don't think the universe is a computer, but it may be a quantum computer.


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

cqm





>
> Brent
>
> On 8/25/2023 4:57 PM, 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List wrote:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02646-x
>
> The universe as a quantum computer.
>
>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0f6WLXr3BE3hiihK5gAgg1MdCvTX257mmV04smctZ8mA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Chat_GPT4 scores in the 1% of a creativity score test v 24 undergraduates

[John Clark]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 7:49 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
https://fortune.com/2023/08/25/a-i-creativity-test-score-humans/
>

Thanks for posting this Spud. Interesting article, although I'm sure some
people will claim that the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking must be
broken because AIs can now do so well on it, just as some foolish people
already say the Turing Test must be broken because computers can now pass
it so easily. But if a test tells you something you don't want to hear that
doesn't necessarily mean the test is broken. But I think this does tell you
something that is undeniably true, it tells you that the Singularity is
much nearer than anyone, including me, would've expected one year ago. But
that's exactly what you'd expect to happen in the run up to the Singularity
because the unexpected is what a singularity is all about.

It's especially relevant because:

*"All of the results were evaluated by trained reviewers at Scholastic
Testing Service, a private testing company that provides scoring for the
TTCT. They didn’t know in advance that some of the tests they’d be scoring
had been completed by AI.  **Since Scholastic Testing Service is a private
company, it does not share its prompts with the public. This ensured that
GPT-4 would not have been able to scrape the internet for past prompts and
their responses."*

And yet:

*"GPT-4 scored in the top 1% of test-takers for the originality of its
ideas. From our research, we believe this marks one of the first examples
of AI meeting or exceeding the human ability for original thinking."*

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

*tsp*

-- 
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/CAJPayv14p74UxYx3P81%3DRs4gPU9yFpZ5y0wGMkD8hTw%3DGdQLxw%40mail.gmail.com.

A new theory of consciousness: conditionalism

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> At a high level, states of consciousness are states of knowledge,*
>

That is certainly true, but what about the reverse, does a high state of
knowledge imply consciousness?  I'll never be able to prove it but I
believe it does but of course for this idea to be practical there must be
some way of demonstrating that the thing in question does indeed have a
high state of knowledge, and the test for that is the Turing Test, and the
fact that my fellow human beings have passed the Turing test is the only
reason I believe that I am NOT the only conscious being in the universe.

*> A conditional is a means by which a system can enter/reach a state of
> knowledge (i.e. a state of consciousness) if and only if some fact is true.*
>

Then "conditional" is not a useful philosophical term because you could be
conscious of and know a lot about Greek mythology. but none of it is true
except for the fact that Greek mythology is about Greek mythology.

>  *Consciousness is revealed as an immaterial, ephemeral relation, not any
> particular physical thing we can point at or hold.*
>

I mostly agree with that but that doesn't imply there's anything mystical
going on, information is also immaterial and you can't point to *ANY
PARTICULAR* physical thing (although you can always point to *SOME *physical
thing) and I believe it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way
information feels when it is being processed intelligently. However there
is nothing ephemeral about information, as far as we can tell the laws of
physics are unitary, that is information can't be destroyed and the
probability of all possible outcomes must add up to 100%. For a while
Stephen Hawking thought that Black Holes destroyed information but he later
changed his mind, Kip Thorne still thinks it may do so but he is in the
minority.

*> All we need to do is link some action to a state of knowledge.*
>

At the most fundamental level that pretty much defines what a computer
programmer does to make a living.

* > It shows the close relationship between consciousness and information,
> where information is defined as "a difference that makes a difference",*
>

And the smallest difference that still makes a difference is the difference
between one and zero, or on and off.

> *It shows a close relationship between consciousness and
> computationalism,*
>

I strongly agree with that,  it makes no difference if the thing doing that
computation is carbon-based and wet and squishy, or silicon-based and dry
and hard.

 >  It is also supportive of functionalism and it's multiple realizability,
> as there are many possibile physical arrangements that lead to conditionals.


YES!

*> It's clear there neural networks firings is all about conditionals and
> combining them in whether or not a neuron will fire and which other neurons
> have fired binds up many conditional relations into one larger one. It
> seems no intelligent (reactive, deliberative, contemplative, reflective,
> etc.) process can be made that does not contain at least some conditionals.
> As without them, there can be no responsiveness. This explains the
> biological necessity to evolve conditionals and apply them in the guidance
> of behavior. In other words, consciousness (states of knowledge) would be
> strictly necessary for intelligence to evolve.*
>

I agree with all of that.
 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

xex

-- 
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/CAJPayv0Xo4Sc4BWQaY4mBA%2Bn7PCMfi7zEE9TQJkSdK00cS8AMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: A new theory of consciousness: conditionalism

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> At a high level, states of consciousness are states of knowledge,*
>

That is certainly true, but what about the reverse, does a high state of
knowledge imply consciousness?  I'll never be able to prove it but I
believe it does but of course for this idea to be practical there must be
some way of demonstrating that the thing in question does indeed have a
high state of knowledge, and the test for that is the Turing Test, and the
fact that my fellow human beings have passed the Turing test is the only
reason I believe that I am NOT the only conscious being in the universe.

*> A conditional is a means by which a system can enter/reach a state of
> knowledge (i.e. a state of consciousness) if and only if some fact is true.*
>

Then "conditional" is not a useful philosophical term because you could be
conscious of and know a lot about Greek mythology. but none of it is true
except for the fact that Greek mythology is about Greek mythology.

>  *Consciousness is revealed as an immaterial, ephemeral relation, not any
> particular physical thing we can point at or hold.*
>

I mostly agree with that but that doesn't imply there's anything mystical
going on, information is also immaterial and you can't point to *ANY
PARTICULAR* physical thing (although you can always point to *SOME *physical
thing) and I believe it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way
information feels when it is being processed intelligently. However there
is nothing ephemeral about information, as far as we can tell the laws of
physics are unitary, that is information can't be destroyed and the
probability of all possible outcomes must add up to 100%. For a while
Stephen Hawking thought that Black Holes destroyed information but he later
changed his mind, Kip Thorne still thinks it may do so but he is in the
minority.

*> All we need to do is link some action to a state of knowledge.*
>

At the most fundamental level that pretty much defines what a computer
programmer does to make a living.

* > It shows the close relationship between consciousness and information,
> where information is defined as "a difference that makes a difference",*
>

And the smallest difference that still makes a difference is the difference
between one and zero, or on and off.

> *It shows a close relationship between consciousness and
> computationalism,*
>

I strongly agree with that,  it makes no difference if the thing doing that
computation is carbon-based and wet and squishy, or silicon-based and dry
and hard.

 >  It is also supportive of functionalism and it's multiple realizability,
> as there are many possibile physical arrangements that lead to conditionals.


YES!

*> It's clear there neural networks firings is all about conditionals and
> combining them in whether or not a neuron will fire and which other neurons
> have fired binds up many conditional relations into one larger one. It
> seems no intelligent (reactive, deliberative, contemplative, reflective,
> etc.) process can be made that does not contain at least some conditionals.
> As without them, there can be no responsiveness. This explains the
> biological necessity to evolve conditionals and apply them in the guidance
> of behavior. In other words, consciousness (states of knowledge) would be
> strictly necessary for intelligence to evolve.*
>

I agree with all of that.
 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

xex

-- 
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/CAJPayv0q60k%3DqoWMbNsAOVxG_qotkyV8TJhN8-vNLoMg7Pu48A%40mail.gmail.com.

NYTimes.com: A Stroke Stole Her Ability to Speak at 30. A.I. Is Helping to Restore It Years Later.

[John Clark]

Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber,
you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

A Stroke Stole Her Ability to Speak at 30. A.I. Is Helping to Restore It
Years Later.

The brain activity of a paralyzed woman is being translated into words
spoken by an avatar. This milestone could help others who have lost speech.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/health/ai-stroke-speech-neuroscience.html?unlocked_article_code=Xpz9EQVB-PC_mn1mMfpjR9VOroppL7XbTD2O4AfxjqBctVv4kTJ3TiSQ6PVwBfWE7toWrZUmsnVfUB5Z07LpfOeYqW2xQTC6IiE1QmlJYPz_yHaWt0oktsYKogZDSkDNuAB-Tk5yODUEl-NuSEGaZ6Wai5S6OUoYsT07ZNrkZHy_hqhXSsJBAQzv4N3aARw5iuQg6vFbDFsCqxzEuL-vhrmmWBaTUN8GWVbBy3vyMMK1a4llrDonmOav8uUJC1g6YgAjpBcNCGIoS-vC1funiNjRzUwohdtom72wWwG_RPdxBXjknz_cV685nb6RrV79xQYatXdgfsmdRUkCz0OCfeHju8qBWQ=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv1Q%2B51PAgzjyw2KsGotE-vEQHvD0NOPv%3D8NMcaS2XuwFg%40mail.gmail.com.

AI Mind Reading Experiment

[John Clark]

AI Mind Reading Experiment 

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

drx

-- 
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/CAJPayv0gxr3LeCuhNvxQcMk3uwqP-BOhbMvB5biy%3DDkTGepZDA%40mail.gmail.com.