subject:"Why Does the Universe Exist\? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project

Read the rest and maybe it will make sense.

Jason

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

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:42 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> There are many dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milkyway, and hence also
>> orbiting Uranus. Perhaps there is intelligent life in one of these dwarf
>> galaxies which makes teapots.*
>>
>
> What the hell?!
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> tjs
>
>
>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2x%2BnR_8bN%2BckOEJ1opCOBuK%3D9xq-J3eY%3DbfgJbWKrn-w%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUh_BwrXa%2BXziJCDm9KwyX5fStZhKMSVvYRhp%2B%3DVrxswWg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

tjs



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2x%2BnR_8bN%2BckOEJ1opCOBuK%3D9xq-J3eY%3DbfgJbWKrn-w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhzoecU-g5X2vf6K0wKxj2WZUrTPcJp7cTXvFyFVYjzMw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjR6mSr8ABRbUbV4Aa0Y3ba5A3%3Do0QnF%2BFOPPoq55k9qQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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


Sure.

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

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

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



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


Nice.



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

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

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

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


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

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

mzy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2gDzFG-kM4qzAfjLF29NvS9D2fy6X5L3Tb%2BqBeS_zUDw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

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

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

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

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypU9wDiAY-970P6SEs4z0StN551%2BhjDwgMsZEhp9WZMvuA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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

OK.

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

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

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

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

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

2ct
i

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1PUwjFh0UbqT%2B6tyttPhdbqwiKxDJV-ryWrurnirRFFw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

>> Well, I like Stephen Wolfram
>
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wpr

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv16pTwqNRGuTFJ%2B12_QKFcKR__Yw-P9mDD0S4sAwMudNA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

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

kmd

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2WV5nPHEA6wYwhiFf27%2BnrThS0N9qEqWRX%3D%3Dh7YUAUJg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > *including the OED*
>

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

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

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

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

But wasn't that what we were talking about?

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

25v

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0_SqrqRiRKXSWNOE-Hj0VMA4vqGFhxW-5HqjU8oHRqTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-15 Thread Telmo Menezes



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

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

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

I disagree that:

- Natural selection "invented" consciousness. 

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

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

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

Telmo

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e71f3a80-885c-42c0-8cf0-20e045326112%40www.fastmail.com.

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

2022-08-15 Thread Telmo Menezes



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telmo

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

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

2022-08-15 Thread Telmo Menezes



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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

2022-08-14 Thread Joel Dietz

>>>
>>>
> >> I can't prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
>>> either, but there's no reason to think there is one and there are
>>> plenty of reasons to suspect there is not.
>>>
>>
>> *> This is exactly the difference between a reasonable assumption and
>> proof.*
>>
>
> . And if it "*is basically unprovable by definition*" so you can't prove
> or disprove it then it's silly and is an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>
>

Then by your definition your idea that 'there is not a teapot in orbit
around the planet Uranus' is 'an idea so bad it's not even wrong' and by
definition you are circulating ' 'so bad' ideas, including probably the
entirety of all your statements since virtually none of them are provable.
QED.

The rest of us live in a world of reasonable assumptions including the OED
which is mostly reliable in how to built semantic webs of meaning and not
at all concerning the ultimate truth of anything.

-- 
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/CAHWbU%3Dab_VC0_XeKqYAGCHshBc38WbE8xoWCPvgKuJ5RbyYJ%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker




On 8/14/2022 4:19 AM, John Clark wrote:
Therefore from a legal point of view it shouldn't matter if somebody 
is a murderer because he had bad genes, or bad upbringing, or a random 
cosmic ray distroyed the crucial part of his brain that generates 
empathy for his fellow creatures, the important point is regardless of 
the cause he remains a murderer spreading misery wherever he goes and 
needs to be dealt with accordingly.


That's overlooking the fact that if he had known or estimated that he 
would be punished he might not have chosen to commit the murder. So in 
calculating the gains and loses from a murder what society does to 
punish murder.  If it's a matter of bad genes or cosmic rays that's not 
something that can enter into informing the calculation to commit murder 
so there's no point in making an example of those murderers.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e1323a07-0f93-d5f0-75c9-43fd3362d1f9%40gmail.com.

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

2022-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker




On 8/14/2022 2:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


> This is the layperson’s definition of freedom and the
definition used to establish legal responsibility in court. 



Yes, and that is why the legal system is such aridiculous
incoherent mess. There could be no other outcome if something is
based on pure nonsense.


The legal system might be a mess, but at least in principle it's a 
good idea not to punish people who didn't do it, did it under 
coercion, or didn't know what they were doing because they were 
dementing, for example.


The legal standard makes sense in compatibilist terms.  One's decisions 
are due one's physical makeup that encodes experience and education.  
Observing and learning that people are punished for illegal actions 
counts as experience and education and so may influence one's decisions.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6d74a67b-7115-4a61-5bee-38724b88cbe2%40gmail.com.

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 01:21, Joel Dietz  wrote:

> There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the
> term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.
>
> 1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in which
> a particular self-identified subject choses an action without coercion. In
> that sense, one can say "I freely chose to turn right at the intersection"
> or "I chose to eat this burger." The English language requires such a usage
> because we need a way to describe actions that exist without coercion.
>
> 2. "free will" in the sense that some elements of our universe may be
> non-deterministic and in which the idea of the "self" (and particularly,
> the idea of our own self) may have an ability to change some outcomes based
> on some concept of agency. This is an extremely illusive concept because it
> is basically unprovable by definition.
>
> For example, imagine a construct of 10,000 neurons in which you know
> exactly what each neuron does, precisely how it receives its stimulus and
> its exact programming. You can then say "I know how this construct works
> and reliably discern what inputs will lead to what outputs." However, it is
> *impossible* to prove that there is not another as of yet invisible or
> unmeasurable mechanism within the construct that can alter or override the
> standard system of inputs and outputs.
>
> This is an extremely hairy problem that extends into paranomal phenomena,
> UFOlogy, religion, etc. in that one cannot can not, by stating any system
> of laws or deterministic systems, rule out the possibility of some override
> function or, for that matter, exceptions where one law simply ceases to
> function.
>
> The concept of "God" bridges over both of these concepts and makes it more
> complex, because it supposes an external agency that may even have a motive
> in keeping up trapped inside some presumably maximally deterministic
> system, or tricking us into thinking that we have agency when we do not, or
> for that matter, some tricky scenario where some master planners battle for
> agency. George R. R. Martin's Sandkings is remarkably like 1st Enoch in
> this regard.
>
> I personally suspect agency is non-binary and instead has multiple scalar
> elements a genetic override function and is rather complex than anyone has
> modeled to date.
>

Most philosophers say that the first definition is all that free will is,
all that is required for agency and moral responsibility, and the second
definition is nonsense.  The second definition comes from a fallacious
overextension of the first definition: you aren’t free if you are forced,
if your brain follows the laws of physics it is forced by the laws of
physics, so you aren’t free. Laypeople who know nothing about philosophy
use the first definition all the time. Laypeople who know a little about
philosophy often seem unaware that the first definition is philosophically
legitimate.


> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 14:47, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 22:07, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
> brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
> wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents
> you from jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want
> to jump over that mountain.
>


 *>It's different if you say "I was forced by someone holding a gun to
 my head" or "I was forced by the laws of physics".*

>>>
>>> If it could be proven that I murdered because somebody put a gun to my
>>> head that would be a legitimate mitigating circumstance because it would be
>>> unlikely that in the future somebody would hold a gun to my head again and
>>> thus I would be unlikely to murder again. But if I did it because of the
>>> law of electromagnetism that would not be a mitigating circumstance because
>>> I am likely to encounter electromagnetism again and thus likely to murder
>>> again.
>>>
>>
>> There would be no point in punishing you if you murdered because someone
>> held a gun to your head, because it wouldn’t change your future behaviour
>> or the behaviour of others on a similar situation. On the other hand,
>> punishing someone who kills in order to steal the victim’s money may deter
>> him and others like him from doing it again, even though his brain was just
>> following the laws of physics.
>>
>>
 *> there is no point in punishing a sleepwalker who kills someone
 because it won't deter other sleepwalkers from doing the same thing.*

>>>
>>> But a few amps flowing through his body for just a few seconds would
>>> improve him immeasurably and prevent the sleepwalker from ever murdering
>>> again. And because he is likely to sleep

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

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 12:04 PM Joel Dietz  wrote:

>> And either there was a reason you chose that action rather than another
>> in which case you're a cuckoo clock, or there was no reason you chose that
>> action rather than another in which case you're a roulette wheel.  Where
>> does this thing called "free will" enter the picture? Forget figuring out
>> if we have it or not, just tell me what it is supposed to mean.  I don't
>> think it means anything, I think it's an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>>
>>
> *> Everything in common usage in the vernacular means something (i.e. it
> has semantic utility). I already gave one common and useful definition*
>

Somehow I missed that, please repeat it.

> *and you are welcome to check the OED for more.*
>

You're never going to find philosophical insight in the OED or any other
dictionary because all the definitions in them are ultimately circular,
they're all made up of words that have their own definitions that are also
made up of words, and round and round we go.

>> I can't prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
>> either, but there's no reason to think there is one and there are plenty
>> of reasons to suspect there is not.
>>
>
> *> This is exactly the difference between a reasonable assumption and
> proof.*
>

Yep, and in science you can never prove an idea is correct but you can
sometimes prove an idea is incorrect. And if it "*is basically unprovable
by definition*" so you can't prove or disprove it then it's silly and is an
idea so bad it's not even wrong. You only get a proof of truth in pure
mathematics, not in science.

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

wet

-- 
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/CAJPayv1s7d5eDX_0FnGgme9DtaT6CtE6zdfZrh%2Bp8-kxaPqDRA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-14 Thread Joel Dietz

>
>
>
> And either there was a reason you chose that action rather than another in
> which case you're a cuckoo clock, or there was no reason you chose that
> action rather than another in which case you're a roulette wheel.  Where
> does this thing called "free will" enter the picture? Forget figuring out
> if we have it or not, just tell me what it is supposed to mean.  I don't
> think it means anything, I think it's an idea so bad it's not even wrong.
>
>
Everything in common usage in the vernacular means something (i.e. it has
semantic utility). I already gave one common and useful definition and you
are welcome to check the OED for more. If you don't like it then you don't
like the English language which I can do nothing about.



>> I can't prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus
> either, but there's no reason to think there is one and there are plenty
> of reasons to suspect there is not.
>

This is exactly the difference between a reasonable assumption and proof.
Unfortunately we find people not properly trained in philosophy stating
things as proofs when they are anything but.








> lnb
>
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv29e5%3DjUbLL4cDrdjy-f3bmU7qjBCejYFXqczN3K%2BXTtw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAHWbU%3DYcWti5ezUyxLGu9NsLDQ5tLHF%2BMWXkDNC0a8Y6d%3DNDhA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 8:47 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

*> The idea of acting of your own free will only applies to punishment as
> deterrent.*

Before you start worrying about deterrence the first order of business is
to make sure that a convicted murderer doesn't murder again because I think
such a thing would be as great a miscarriage of justice as executing an
innocent man.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

jhgq

>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3QWbOZ8NzZqi9QOq98jCRF0oENPf9Z26-Onn5FiXHE5w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 11:21 AM Joel Dietz  wrote:

*There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the
> term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.*
> *1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in
> which a particular self-identified subject choses an action without
> coercion.*
>

And either there was a reason you chose that action rather than another in
which case you're a cuckoo clock, or there was no reason you chose that
action rather than another in which case you're a roulette wheel.  Where
does this thing called "free will" enter the picture? Forget figuring out
if we have it or not, just tell me what it is supposed to mean.  I don't
think it means anything, I think it's an idea so bad it's not even wrong.

*> 2. "free will" in the sense that some elements of our universe may be
> non-deterministic and in which the idea of the "self" (and particularly,
> the idea of our own self) may have an ability to change some outcomes based
> on some concept of agency.*
>

That doesn't make any sense,  if it was non-deterministic then there was no
reason for that change and your actions were unreasonable,  but if "agency"
(whatever that means) was the reason for the change then the change was
deterministic not non-deterministic.

*> This is an extremely illusive concept because it is basically unprovable
> by definition. *
>

Then it's not a useful concept and thinking about it is not worth the wear
and tear inflicted on our neurons.

*> For example, imagine a construct of 10,000 neurons in which you know
> exactly what each neuron does, precisely how it receives its stimulus and
> its exact programming. You can then say "I know how this construct works
> and reliably discern what inputs will lead to what outputs." However, it is
> *impossible* to prove that there is not another as of yet invisible or
> unmeasurable mechanism within the construct that can alter or override the
> standard system of inputs and outputs.  *
>

I can't prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus either
, but there's no reason to think there is one and there are plenty of
reasons to suspect there is not.

*> The concept of "God" bridges over both of these concepts and makes it
> more complex,*
>

Even in the unlikely event that God exists I don't see how that alters
things one iota. It is as true for God as it is for me, God either does
what He does for a reason in which case His actions are reasonable, or He
does what he does for no reason in which case His actions are unreasonable.

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

lnb

-- 
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/CAJPayv29e5%3DjUbLL4cDrdjy-f3bmU7qjBCejYFXqczN3K%2BXTtw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-14 Thread Joel Dietz

There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the
term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.

1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in which
a particular self-identified subject choses an action without coercion. In
that sense, one can say "I freely chose to turn right at the intersection"
or "I chose to eat this burger." The English language requires such a usage
because we need a way to describe actions that exist without coercion.

2. "free will" in the sense that some elements of our universe may be
non-deterministic and in which the idea of the "self" (and particularly,
the idea of our own self) may have an ability to change some outcomes based
on some concept of agency. This is an extremely illusive concept because it
is basically unprovable by definition.

For example, imagine a construct of 10,000 neurons in which you know
exactly what each neuron does, precisely how it receives its stimulus and
its exact programming. You can then say "I know how this construct works
and reliably discern what inputs will lead to what outputs." However, it is
*impossible* to prove that there is not another as of yet invisible or
unmeasurable mechanism within the construct that can alter or override the
standard system of inputs and outputs.

This is an extremely hairy problem that extends into paranomal phenomena,
UFOlogy, religion, etc. in that one cannot can not, by stating any system
of laws or deterministic systems, rule out the possibility of some override
function or, for that matter, exceptions where one law simply ceases to
function.

The concept of "God" bridges over both of these concepts and makes it more
complex, because it supposes an external agency that may even have a motive
in keeping up trapped inside some presumably maximally deterministic
system, or tricking us into thinking that we have agency when we do not, or
for that matter, some tricky scenario where some master planners battle for
agency. George R. R. Martin's Sandkings is remarkably like 1st Enoch in
this regard.

I personally suspect agency is non-binary and instead has multiple scalar
elements a genetic override function and is rather complex than anyone has
modeled to date.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 14:47, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 22:07, John Clark  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
 electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
 brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
 wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents you
 from jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want to
 jump over that mountain.

>>>
>>>
>>> *>It's different if you say "I was forced by someone holding a gun to my
>>> head" or "I was forced by the laws of physics".*
>>>
>>
>> If it could be proven that I murdered because somebody put a gun to my
>> head that would be a legitimate mitigating circumstance because it would be
>> unlikely that in the future somebody would hold a gun to my head again and
>> thus I would be unlikely to murder again. But if I did it because of the
>> law of electromagnetism that would not be a mitigating circumstance because
>> I am likely to encounter electromagnetism again and thus likely to murder
>> again.
>>
>
> There would be no point in punishing you if you murdered because someone
> held a gun to your head, because it wouldn’t change your future behaviour
> or the behaviour of others on a similar situation. On the other hand,
> punishing someone who kills in order to steal the victim’s money may deter
> him and others like him from doing it again, even though his brain was just
> following the laws of physics.
>
>
>>> *> there is no point in punishing a sleepwalker who kills someone
>>> because it won't deter other sleepwalkers from doing the same thing.*
>>>
>>
>> But a few amps flowing through his body for just a few seconds would
>> improve him immeasurably and prevent the sleepwalker from ever murdering
>> again. And because he is likely to sleep again, he would be an extremely
>> dangerous man that needs to be dealt with. Imprisonment won't solve the
>> problem, in 2019 in the USA 143 prisoners were murdered by other prisoners
>> who had already been convicted of murder, and the man who murdered Martin
>> Luther King was an escaped prisoner.
>>
>
> The idea of acting of your own free will only applies to punishment as
> deterrent. You have to have control over your behaviour and to understand
> what you are doing in order for that to work, and that doesn’t apply to
> sleepwalkers.
>
>> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 22:07, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> >> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
>>> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
>>> brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
>>> wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents you
>>> from jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want to jump
>>> over that mountain.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *>It's different if you say "I was forced by someone holding a gun to my
>> head" or "I was forced by the laws of physics".*
>>
>
> If it could be proven that I murdered because somebody put a gun to my
> head that would be a legitimate mitigating circumstance because it would be
> unlikely that in the future somebody would hold a gun to my head again and
> thus I would be unlikely to murder again. But if I did it because of the
> law of electromagnetism that would not be a mitigating circumstance because
> I am likely to encounter electromagnetism again and thus likely to murder
> again.
>

There would be no point in punishing you if you murdered because someone
held a gun to your head, because it wouldn’t change your future behaviour
or the behaviour of others on a similar situation. On the other hand,
punishing someone who kills in order to steal the victim’s money may deter
him and others like him from doing it again, even though his brain was just
following the laws of physics.


>> *> there is no point in punishing a sleepwalker who kills someone because
>> it won't deter other sleepwalkers from doing the same thing.*
>>
>
> But a few amps flowing through his body for just a few seconds would
> improve him immeasurably and prevent the sleepwalker from ever murdering
> again. And because he is likely to sleep again, he would be an extremely
> dangerous man that needs to be dealt with. Imprisonment won't solve the
> problem, in 2019 in the USA 143 prisoners were murdered by other prisoners
> who had already been convicted of murder, and the man who murdered Martin
> Luther King was an escaped prisoner.
>

The idea of acting of your own free will only applies to punishment as
deterrent. You have to have control over your behaviour and to understand
what you are doing in order for that to work, and that doesn’t apply to
sleepwalkers.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypUK_kSXzCNdL4G%2BzTRZ5CNoY77CFMOYB%2BXUdx%3D%2Br_cpNw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
>> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
>> brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
>> wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents you
>> from jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want to jump
>> over that mountain.
>>
>
>
> *>It's different if you say "I was forced by someone holding a gun to my
> head" or "I was forced by the laws of physics".*
>

If it could be proven that I murdered because somebody put a gun to my head
that would be a legitimate mitigating circumstance because it would be
unlikely that in the future somebody would hold a gun to my head again and
thus I would be unlikely to murder again. But if I did it because of the
law of electromagnetism that would not be a mitigating circumstance because
I am likely to encounter electromagnetism again and thus likely to murder
again.

> *> there is no point in punishing a sleepwalker who kills someone because
> it won't deter other sleepwalkers from doing the same thing.*
>

But a few amps flowing through his body for just a few seconds would
improve him immeasurably and prevent the sleepwalker from ever murdering
again. And because he is likely to sleep again, he would be an extremely
dangerous man that needs to be dealt with. Imprisonment won't solve the
problem, in 2019 in the USA 143 prisoners were murdered by other prisoners
who had already been convicted of murder, and the man who murdered Martin
Luther King was an escaped prisoner.

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

com

wcom

-- 
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/CAJPayv0MWsBKpw5r6wysXjYY8VKhgR-PJnTfMQvf9ryPc9tQjA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 21:20, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:52 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> *> you don't act of your own free will if you do something accidentally,
>> or you are forced,*
>>
>
> Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
> electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
> brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
> wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents you
> from jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want to jump
> over that mountain.
>

It's different if you say "I was forced by someone holding a gun to my
head" or "I was forced by the laws of physics".


>
> *> There is nothing clever about this, it's the layperson's definition,*
>
>
> Yeah, it's just saying sometimes you can will what you want to do and
> sometimes you can't. I don't see why lawyers need to get involved in that
> but under our legal system they certainly are.
>
> >>Yes, and that is why the legal system is such a ridiculous incoherent
>>> mess. There could be no other outcome if something is based on pure
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> *>> The legal system might be a mess, but at least in principle it's a
>> good idea not to punish people who didn't do it, did it under coercion, or
>> didn't know what they were doing because they were dementing, for example.*
>>
>
> The first question you have to ask is what is the purpose of punishing a
> murderer? I think the only legitimate answer to that is to prevent a
> similar murder in the future, anything more than that is not justice, it's
> just vengeance; I'm no different from anybody else and sometimes I'd like a
> little vengeance, but I am not proud of that reptilian part of my brain and
> so I will not defend it. Therefore from a legal point of view it shouldn't
> matter if somebody is a murderer because he had bad genes, or bad
> upbringing, or a random cosmic ray distroyed the crucial part of his brain
> that generates empathy for his fellow creatures, the important point is
> regardless of the cause he remains a murderer spreading misery wherever he
> goes and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The only legitimate mitigating
> circumstance would be if it could be proven that the murder occurred
> because of extremely unlikely circumstances that were very unlikely to be
> repeated. We should assume he is likely to murder again unless proven
> otherwise, and that would not be easy to prove.
>

Whether punishment could act as a deterrent corresponds with whether the
action was done "of his own free will" as per the above definition. That is
the main utility of the idea. For example, there is no point in punishing a
sleepwalker who kills someone because it won't deter other sleepwalkers
from doing the same thing.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypUsZ7U-0cHrJ9%3DtVO_mBOXutYOGdwCP6WKJaB2djq6M3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 5:52 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

*> you don't act of your own free will if you do something accidentally, or
> you are forced,*
>

Everybody is always subjected to force, sometimes, as when an
electromagnetic force enters your eye and prevents you from walking into a
brick wall it's a good thing because you don't want to walk into a brick
wall, and sometimes, such as when the gravitational force prevents you from
jumping over a mountain, it's a bad thing because you want to jump over
that mountain.

*> There is nothing clever about this, it's the layperson's definition,*

Yeah, it's just saying sometimes you can will what you want to do and
sometimes you can't. I don't see why lawyers need to get involved in that
but under our legal system they certainly are.

>>Yes, and that is why the legal system is such a ridiculous incoherent
>> mess. There could be no other outcome if something is based on pure
>> nonsense.
>>
>
> *>> The legal system might be a mess, but at least in principle it's a
> good idea not to punish people who didn't do it, did it under coercion, or
> didn't know what they were doing because they were dementing, for example.*
>

The first question you have to ask is what is the purpose of punishing a
murderer? I think the only legitimate answer to that is to prevent a
similar murder in the future, anything more than that is not justice, it's
just vengeance; I'm no different from anybody else and sometimes I'd like a
little vengeance, but I am not proud of that reptilian part of my brain and
so I will not defend it. Therefore from a legal point of view it shouldn't
matter if somebody is a murderer because he had bad genes, or bad
upbringing, or a random cosmic ray distroyed the crucial part of his brain
that generates empathy for his fellow creatures, the important point is
regardless of the cause he remains a murderer spreading misery wherever he
goes and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The only legitimate mitigating
circumstance would be if it could be proven that the murder occurred
because of extremely unlikely circumstances that were very unlikely to be
repeated. We should assume he is likely to murder again unless proven
otherwise, and that would not be easy to prove.

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

8vv

-- 
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/CAJPayv19YVU_cweDB0A84vQD0Ks3YKjvZKvFuC2h-kiB8dE%3DDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 at 18:52, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 5:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> *> Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they
>> think free will and determinism are compatible. *
>
>
> I think before philosophers start saying what free will is and is not
> compatible with they should first explain what the hell they mean by "free
> will, but they never do, when asked they just start waving their hands
> around speaking gibberish.
>

That's what I was trying to explain: you act of your own free will if you
do what you want to do, you don't act of your own free will if you do
something accidentally, or you are forced, or you don't know what you're
doing due to a mental illness. There is nothing clever about this, it's the
layperson's definition, and most philosophers think it's the only
definition that makes sense. Daniel Dennett is an example of a
compatibilist philosopher.

>
>
>> *> Compatibilists say that you act freely if you do so according to your
>> preferences *
>
>
> There are only 2 possibilities, there is either a reason for my
> preference in which case it is mechanical, or there is no reason for my
> preference in which case it is by definition un-reasonable and random.
>
> *> or under abnormal influence such as psychotic illness. *
>
>
> There are only 2 possibilities,  there is a reason for that "abnormal"
> influence in which case it is mechanical or there is no reason for the
> "abnormal"  influence in which case it is by definition un-reasonable and
> random.
>

Yes, so you can only act freely if your actions are determined. A little
bit of randomness might be OK but if everything you did was random you
would die.

>
> > This is the layperson’s definition of freedom and the definition used
>> to establish legal responsibility in court.
>
>
> Yes, and that is why the legal system is such a ridiculous incoherent
> mess. There could be no other outcome if something is based on pure
> nonsense.
>

The legal system might be a mess, but at least in principle it's a good
idea not to punish people who didn't do it, did it under coercion, or
didn't know what they were doing because they were dementing, for example.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

[image: width=]

Virus-free.www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypV-mm67Qfh%2BPPdi8h71t%2B7QN%3DN1X5zUtiGhPF9Yd0qgaw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 5:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

*> Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they
> think free will and determinism are compatible. *

I think before philosophers start saying what free will is and is not
compatible with they should first explain what the hell they mean by "free
will, but they never do, when asked they just start waving their hands
around speaking gibberish.

> *> Compatibilists say that you act freely if you do so according to your
> preferences *

There are only 2 possibilities, there is either a reason for my preference
in which case it is mechanical, or there is no reason for my preference in
which case it is by definition un-reasonable and random.

*> or under abnormal influence such as psychotic illness. *

There are only 2 possibilities,  there is a reason for that "abnormal"
influence in which case it is mechanical or there is no reason for the
"abnormal"  influence in which case it is by definition un-reasonable and
random.

> This is the layperson’s definition of freedom and the definition used to
> establish legal responsibility in court.

Yes, and that is why the legal system is such a ridiculous incoherent
mess. There
could be no other outcome if something is based on pure nonsense.

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

hgh

-- 
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/CAJPayv1bW9X7gOntG1R3AhXK92DFawHhmCOBAvVvhjzZHj9%2BpA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-13 Thread Brent Meeker

On 8/13/2022 4:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
 wrote:

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

Yes.

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

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

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

You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you 
actually do it because sometimes you change your mind at the last 
second, but there is nothing profound or mystical in that, a two 
dollar calculator doesn't know what it's gonna put up on its screen 
when you type in 2+2 until it has finish the calculation.

/> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to
propose a mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined
world. I don’t think that works because indeterminacy is not a
good basis for free will (the main problem with libertarian free
will), but it is an interesting idea nonetheless./

I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will 
have gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking 
himself what the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never 
heard a philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either 
circular or just pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before 
philosophers start talking about whether human beings have a certain 
property they first make clear what that property is, and only after 
that would it be appropriate to discuss if humans happen to have that 
property or not.  I don't demand that the definition be perfect but I 
don't think it's too much to ask that they give me at least a general 
idea of approximately what the hell they're talking about when they 
say "free will".

Daniel Dennett says it is making choices based on who you are: your 
education, experience, genetics, perspective,...  And that's all the 
"free will" worth having.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 

fws

--
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/CAJPayv3tjgdgN5tmHsZxmsVHNctt1rneKMhtGUF-q53Lqu0cTg%40mail.gmail.com 
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c8a76f6d-253d-96aa-022f-0f9524d61b43%40gmail.com.

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

2022-08-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 21:53, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> *> Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
>> identically, as would any supervening mental states.*
>
>
> Yes.
>
>  > *However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different
>> physical states can give rise to the same mental state.*
>
>
> True, and in that situation things would not be reversible; a cellular
> automation like Conway's LIFE is not reversible and for the same reason.
> Something can be 100% deterministic in the forward time dimension but not
> in the backward time dimension, but so far at least nobody has any
> experimental evidence that fundamental physics has that property,
> fundamental physics can't explain why you can't unscramble an egg, you need
> more than the laws of physics to explain that you need to invoke initial
> conditions. That situation could change if some of Stephen Wolfram's ideas
> turn out to be correct, but so far there is no evidence that they are.
>
>  > *The different physical states may then evolve differently giving
>> different subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this would mean that your
>> next mental state is undetermined. *
>
>
> You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do
> it because sometimes you change your mind at the last second, but there is
> nothing profound or mystical in that, a two dollar calculator doesn't know
> what it's gonna put up on its screen when you type in 2+2 until it has
> finish the calculation.
>
> *> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a
>> mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think
>> that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the
>> main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea
>> nonetheless.*
>
>
> I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will have
> gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking himself what
> the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never heard a
> philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either circular or just
> pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before philosophers start
> talking about whether human beings have a certain property they first make
> clear what that property is, and only after that would it be appropriate to
> discuss if humans happen to have that property or not.  I don't demand that
> the definition be perfect but I don't think it's too much to ask that they
> give me at least a general idea of approximately what the hell they're
> talking about when they say "free will".
>

Most modern philosophers are compatibilists, so called because they think
free will and determinism are compatible. Compatibilists say that you act
freely if you do so according to your preferences rather than being coerced
or under abnormal influence such as psychotic illness. This is the
layperson’s definition of freedom and the definition used to establish
legal responsibility in court. Incompatibilists, on the other hand, worry
that even if you are doing what you want, it isn’t really free if your
actions are determined by prior events. Compatibilists think this is
absurd, because if your actions aren’t determined, they are random, and why
would anyone equate freedom with their actions being random?

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXumdTgsyfJbvNNPHobFM5JrLDwUEMm7rQ0Qg407KMw6g%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-13 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

 On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is what I wrote:
>>>
>>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to
>>> believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” 
>>> can
>>> exist and be true independently of the universe or someone writing it 
>>> down,
>>> or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t"
>>> to some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
>>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
>>> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>>>
>>
>> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
>> values, or apply rules of inference.
>>
>> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>>
>>
>> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>>
>
> Perhaps conventionally.
>
> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).
>
>
> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5
> for sufficiently large values of 2.
>
>
> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to
> "why quantum mechanics?"
>
>
> One can "account" for anything in words.
>

 Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should
 find themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.

 You don't know that the environment has more than one history.

 If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.

 You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

>>>
>>> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
>>> worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in
>>> their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
>>> infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
>>> plentitude.
>>>
>>>
>>> In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have
>>> only one instance.  There would be no indeterminance.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say they would be distinct?
>>
>>
>> They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are the same
>> universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles.
>>
>
> The universes can be different while the same brain state of a particular
> observer is found between two or more universes.
>
>
> In that case they are distinct universes.  Universes include brains.
>

I think we're talking past each other. Perhaps this passage will help
clarify things:

And it’s very much the same story with the ruliad—and with the laws of
physics. If we constrain the kind of way that we observe—or “parse”—the
ruliad, then it becomes inevitable that the effective laws we’ll see will
have certain features, which turns out apparently to be exactly what’s
needed to reproduce known laws of physics. The full ruliad is in a sense
very wild; but as observers with certain characteristics, we see a much
tamer version of it, and in fact what we see is capable of being described
in terms of laws that we can largely write just in terms of existing
mathematical constructs.

At the outset, we might have imagined that the ruliad would basically just
serve as a kind of dictionary of possible universes—a “universe of all
possible universes” in which each possible universe has different laws. But
the ruliad is in a sense a much more complicated object. Rather than being
a “dictionary” of possible separate universes, it is something that
entangles together all possible universes. The Principle of Computational
Equivalence implies a certain homogeneity to this entangled structure. But
the crucial point is that we don’t “look at this structure from the
outside”: we are instead observers embedded within the structure. And what

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

2022-08-13 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

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

Yes.

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

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

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

You never know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do
it because sometimes you change your mind at the last second, but there is
nothing profound or mystical in that, a two dollar calculator doesn't know
what it's gonna put up on its screen when you type in 2+2 until it has
finish the calculation.

*> This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a
> mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think
> that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the
> main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea
> nonetheless.*

I've never heard of him but if he's like most philosophers he will have
gone on and on about why we have free will without once asking himself what
the term "free will" is even supposed to mean; I've never heard a
philosopher give a definition of it that wasn't either circular or just
pure gibberish. I feel it might be helpful if before philosophers start
talking about whether human beings have a certain property they first make
clear what that property is, and only after that would it be appropriate to
discuss if humans happen to have that property or not.  I don't demand that
the definition be perfect but I don't think it's too much to ask that they
give me at least a general idea of approximately what the hell they're
talking about when they say "free will".

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

fws

>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3tjgdgN5tmHsZxmsVHNctt1rneKMhtGUF-q53Lqu0cTg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 10:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is what I wrote:
>>>
>>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to
>>> believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” 
>>> can
>>> exist and be true independently of the universe or someone writing it 
>>> down,
>>> or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t"
>>> to some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
>>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
>>> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>>>
>>
>> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
>> values, or apply rules of inference.
>>
>> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>>
>>
>> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>>
>
> Perhaps conventionally.
>
> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).
>
>
> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5
> for sufficiently large values of 2.
>
>
> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to
> "why quantum mechanics?"
>
>
> One can "account" for anything in words.
>

 Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should
 find themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.


 You don't know that the environment has more than one history.


 If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.


 You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

>>>
>>> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
>>> worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in
>>> their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
>>> infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
>>> plentitude.
>>>
>>>
>>> In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have
>>> only one instance.  There would be no indeterminance.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say they would be distinct?
>>
>>
>> They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are the same
>> universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles.
>>
>
> The universes can be different while the same brain state of a particular
> observer is found between two or more universes.
>
>
> In that case they are distinct universes.  Universes include brains.
>

Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve
identically, as would any supervening mental states. However, a
supervenient relationship is such that multiple different physical states
can give rise to the same mental state. The different physical states may
then evolve differently giving different subsequent mental states.
Subjectively, this would mean that your next mental state is undetermined.
This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a
mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think
that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the
main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea
nonetheless.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXqyALHwbpDv76vYdpsS0StQ-H0AvNZp443iz-Y55Tq-w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is
this: If one is willing to believe
that truth values for mathematical
relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist
and be true independently of the
universe or someone writing it down,
or a mathematician thinking about
it, that is all you need.

But it's truth value does depend on
someone assigning the value "t" to some
axioms and all mathematical truth values
are nothing but "t" arbitrarily assigned
to some axioms plus some rules of
inference that preserve "t". "t" has
little to do with what it true in the world.

The physical world chugs along with anyone
having to assign to assign values, or apply
rules of inference.

Why can't the same be true for other platonic
objects?

Because "Platonic" means "exists only in
imagination".

Perhaps conventionally.

But perhaps physical existence is platonic
existence (i.e. all self-consistent structures
exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).

Given a sufficiently broad definition of
"exists". Just like 2+2=5 for sufficiently large
values of 2.

This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly
yield an answer to "why quantum mechanics?"

One can "account" for anything in words.

Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies
observers should find themselves entwines with an
environment having many-histories.

You don't know that the environment has more than one
history.

If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence
of a plentitude.

You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct
Newtonian worlds, observers within that reality will
experience indeterminnace in their observations due to the
fact that each observer's mind has an infinity of
incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
plentitude.

In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and
would have only one instance. There would be no indeterminance.

Why do you say they would be distinct?

They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are
the same universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles.

The universes can be different while the same brain state of a
particular observer is found between two or more universes.

In that case they are distinct universes. Universes include brains.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a64476a-2eeb-3081-89c4-e39f83680354%40gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Below is what I wrote:
>>
>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to
>> believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can
>> exist and be true independently of the universe or someone writing it 
>> down,
>> or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>>
>>
>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t"
>> to some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
>> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>>
>
> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
> values, or apply rules of inference.
>
> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>
>
> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>

 Perhaps conventionally.

 But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
 self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).


 Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5
 for sufficiently large values of 2.


 This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to
 "why quantum mechanics?"


 One can "account" for anything in words.

>>>
>>> Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should find
>>> themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't know that the environment has more than one history.
>>>
>>>
>>> If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.
>>>
>>>
>>> You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?
>>>
>>
>> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
>> worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in
>> their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
>> infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
>> plentitude.
>>
>>
>> In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have
>> only one instance.  There would be no indeterminance.
>>
>
> Why do you say they would be distinct?
>
>
> They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are the same
> universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles.
>

The universes can be different while the same brain state of a particular
observer is found between two or more universes.

Jason




> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a13fe376-1288-60cd-af27-4cb6e1742917%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgpJ0%3D_V0JLJdg79ORnfBo49-13D-UMPEBXLTekk-VzWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this:
If one is willing to believe that truth
values for mathematical relations like “2
+ 2 = 4” can exist and be true
independently of the universe or someone
writing it down, or a mathematician
thinking about it, that is all you need.

But it's truth value does depend on someone
assigning the value "t" to some axioms and all
mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some
rules of inference that preserve "t". "t" has
little to do with what it true in the world.

The physical world chugs along with anyone having
to assign to assign values, or apply rules of
inference.

Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?

Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".

Perhaps conventionally.

But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence
(i.e. all self-consistent structures exist, all rule
based formal systems, etc.).

Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".
Just like 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield
an answer to "why quantum mechanics?"

One can "account" for anything in words.

Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers
should find themselves entwines with an environment having
many-histories.

You don't know that the environment has more than one history.

If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a
plentitude.

You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct
Newtonian worlds, observers within that reality will experience
indeterminnace in their observations due to the fact that each
observer's mind has an infinity of incarnations across different
Newtonian universes in the plentitude.

In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would
have only one instance. There would be no indeterminance.

Why do you say they would be distinct?

They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are the
same universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles.

Brent

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Below is what I wrote:
>
> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist 
> and
> be true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>
>
> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" to
> some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>

 The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
 values, or apply rules of inference.

 Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?


 Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".

>>>
>>> Perhaps conventionally.
>>>
>>> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
>>> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5 for
>>> sufficiently large values of 2.
>>>
>>>
>>> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to
>>> "why quantum mechanics?"
>>>
>>>
>>> One can "account" for anything in words.
>>>
>>
>> Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should find
>> themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.
>>
>>
>> You don't know that the environment has more than one history.
>>
>>
>> If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.
>>
>>
>> You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?
>>
>
> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
> worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in
> their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
> infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
> plentitude.
>
>
> In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have
> only one instance.  There would be no indeterminance.
>

Why do you say they would be distinct?

Say four different Newtonian universes all contain Alice's brain in state
S. Can Alice predict what she will see next, or which universe she happens
to be in?

(See attached brain states image)

"It is impossible for any observer to deduce with certainty on the basis of
her observations and memory which world she is a part of. That is, there
are always many different worlds for which being contained in them is
compatible with everything she knows, but which imply different predictions
for future observations."
-- Markus Müller in “Could the physical world be emergent instead of
fundamental, and why should we ask?” (2017)


Jason




> Brent
>
> Even God could perhaps not eliminate that indeterminnace as experienced by
> most observers in such a reality. The feat might be like making a square
> circle.
>
> Jason
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj6FAkAW2cZGEUwTheqDHSvdBTvytbBh8mOgSWW7xHzWA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/448be750-da2a-91b8-93ba-7c8ff215263a%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

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

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

On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this: If
one is willing to believe that truth values
for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4”
can exist and be true independently of the
universe or someone writing it down, or a
mathematician thinking about it, that is all
you need.

But it's truth value does depend on someone
assigning the value "t" to some axioms and all
mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules
of inference that preserve "t". "t" has little to
do with what it true in the world.

The physical world chugs along with anyone having to
assign to assign values, or apply rules of inference.

Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?

Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".

Perhaps conventionally.

But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e.
all self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal
systems, etc.).

Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists". Just
like 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an
answer to "why quantum mechanics?"

One can "account" for anything in words.

Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers
should find themselves entwines with an environment having
many-histories.

You don't know that the environment has more than one history.

If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a
plentitude.

You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace
in their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
plentitude.

In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have
only one instance. There would be no indeterminance.

Brent

Even God could perhaps not eliminate that indeterminnace as
experienced by most observers in such a reality. The feat might be
like making a square circle.

Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj6FAkAW2cZGEUwTheqDHSvdBTvytbBh8mOgSWW7xHzWA%40mail.gmail.com
.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

 Below is what I wrote:

 The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
 that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
 be true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
 mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.

 But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" to
 some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
 arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
 preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.

>>>
>>> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
>>> values, or apply rules of inference.
>>>
>>> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps conventionally.
>>
>> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
>> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).
>>
>>
>> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5 for
>> sufficiently large values of 2.
>>
>>
>> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to "why
>> quantum mechanics?"
>>
>>
>> One can "account" for anything in words.
>>
>
> Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should find
> themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.
>
>
> You don't know that the environment has more than one history.
>
>
> If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.
>
>
> You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?
>

If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian
worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in
their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an
infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the
plentitude. Even God could perhaps not eliminate that indeterminnace as
experienced by most observers in such a reality. The feat might be like
making a square circle.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj6FAkAW2cZGEUwTheqDHSvdBTvytbBh8mOgSWW7xHzWA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this: If one is
willing to believe that truth values for
mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist
and be true independently of the universe or
someone writing it down, or a mathematician
thinking about it, that is all you need.

But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning
the value "t" to some axioms and all mathematical truth
values are nothing but "t" arbitrarily assigned to some
axioms plus some rules of inference that preserve "t".
"t" has little to do with what it true in the world.

The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign
to assign values, or apply rules of inference.

Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?

Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".

Perhaps conventionally.

But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems,
etc.).

Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists". Just like 2+2=5
for sufficiently large values of 2.

This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer
to "why quantum mechanics?"

One can "account" for anything in words.

Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should
find themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.

You don't know that the environment has more than one history.

If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.

You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds?

Brent

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is what I wrote:
>>>
>>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
>>> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
>>> be true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
>>> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" to
>>> some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
>>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
>>> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>>>
>>
>> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
>> values, or apply rules of inference.
>>
>> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>>
>>
>> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>>
>
> Perhaps conventionally.
>
> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).
>
>
> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists".   Just like 2+2=5 for
> sufficiently large values of 2.
>
>
> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to "why
> quantum mechanics?"
>
>
> One can "account" for anything in words.
>

Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should find
themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories.

If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude.

Jason



> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e88231c9-6d6a-d817-289b-91582c5add99%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjEM95SCzgjT6ek74PY6w%2BTNpt7XR1-NSkBgJk6Owfodw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this: If one is
willing to believe that truth values for mathematical
relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be true
independently of the universe or someone writing it
down, or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all
you need.

But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the
value "t" to some axioms and all mathematical truth values
are nothing but "t" arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus
some rules of inference that preserve "t". "t" has little to
do with what it true in the world.

The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to
assign values, or apply rules of inference.

Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?

Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".

Perhaps conventionally.

But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).

Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists". Just like 2+2=5 for
sufficiently large values of 2.

This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to
"why quantum mechanics?"

One can "account" for anything in words.

Brent

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

On 8/12/2022 12:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:33 PM John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch
wrote:

/> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept
of zero would necessarily exist to preserve the property of
the number of physical objects in that nothing.If the concept
of zero exists then at least 'one' abstract entity must exist,
the one number zero.Now 'two' abstract numbers exist, 'one'
and 'zero'. Et cetera./

You're making the argument that there must be more than just one
thing in the universe and therefore it can not consist of infinite
unbounded homogeneity, and therefore the universe is not nothing,
and therefore the universe is something, and therefore it exists.
And that's all very fine but it's irrelevant because your claim
was that 2+2=4 would exist even if the universe did not. I
maintain it would not. I'm certainly not saying 2+2 =4 has no
meaning, I'm saying it has a meaning precisely because the
universe exists. I'm saying that physics is more fundamental than
mathematics.

You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects. And have
said a number N is meaningless without at least N things in that
universe to count.

Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?

Meaning is a relation between a sentence and a fact or other sentence.
"Zero" is meaningless except for the relations we attribute to it in
sentences. It is interesting that in Peano's axioms zero is defined
negatively as "The integer that is not the successor of n for all n."

You might argue that it is, but I would say zero is necessary for the
operation and preservation of such a universe of zero objects.

So why don't you conclude there can be no universe of zero objects. And
what exactly is an object? It's not a term that appears in quantum
field theory?

Otherwise without some rule saying "the number of physical objects is
and shall always be 0" what is to stop the nothing from becoming a
universe having a non zero number of objects?

That's actually a well worked out theory, c.f. Hartle-Hawking, that
nothing became a universe. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book about it.

I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the
number zero, for a nothing of the kind you describe.

Not do I see a way for zero to exist apart from all the other numbers.

That's "t" under Peano's axioms.

Zero has properties, including factors. The factors of zero include
all integers.

Oh, well that proves it's real.

Brent

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 4:49 PM Mindey  wrote:

> I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have a
>> better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it.
>
>
> > I define "nothing" as absence of information about any aspect
> 
> (projection axis, defining semantic dimension) whatsoever.
>

I think my definition is more fundamental because Information is physical, it
takes physical energy to erase information, and there is a limit to how
much of it a given volume can contain and it is proportional to the area of
the surface of that volume. Purely abstract things don't have that
property, it would be silly to ask how much something abstract like love a
sphere with a radius of 1 meter could contain, but it would not be silly to
ask how much information it could contain.  And you can't have information
without a discontinuity of some sort, and you can't have a discontinuity if
everything is just one thing because the smallest bit of information there
is involves a change from on to off.

Also, your definition is somewhat circular because "absence" already
implies the thing you're trying to define.

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

ggf

>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Ov0gRpimWAmazjbA1UN-hdunuYbjeVG84O9xoGT8u0A%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-12 Thread Joel Dietz

>
>> * > My scepticism is this: is anything being gained in terms of
>> explanatory power? *
>
>
> Although quite interesting so far Stephen Wolfram cellular automation
> ideas have been no help whatsoever to physicists, but perhaps someday they
> may be, maybe someday we'll find that quarks behave the way they do because
> of some simple cellular automation at work inside them, but even if that
> day comes to pass you're still not going to be able to make a Turing
> machine, or anything else, with just a definition.
>

I just gave a TedX talk on this topic (https://youtu.be/HhNnnKV-h_Q) but,
in short, Wolfram's ideas about the ruliad are extremely helpful for
formalizing physics as a set of transformations and, as such, you can begin
to create a ruleset and test various variations. We are doing this
starting with a physics engine (i.e. a procedurally generated game worlds
with variables physics playable in various game engines including UE5), but
the implication is you can potentially test various rulesets and see what
coheres into a meaningful and observable phenomena.

In that sense, this is like a testing kit to see what other dimensions are
possible.





> ewg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>>
>> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started
>> going in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs
>> are perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be
>> conceived of. Almost everything else can be seen as a special case of
>> hypergraphs. Like you say, with the update rules, we shouldn't be surprised
>> if they are equivalent to the UD. My scepticism is this: is anything being
>> gained in terms of explanatory power? Should we be surprised that such a
>> powerful representation can contain the rules of our reality? I do admit
>> that I have to study these ideas in more detail, and there is something
>> really compelling about hypergraphs + update rules.
>>
>> "As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will
>> immediately ask “On what computer?” But a key intellectual point is that
>> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly,
>> without reference to anything like a physical computer. "
>>
>> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> Am Do, 11. Aug 2022, um 20:35, schrieb Jason Resch:
>>
>>
>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
>>
>>
>> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the
>> type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with
>> new ways of explaining it and some new insights.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiFsW5z1nPmXdZUNS2_StB%2B_cZjP5tX6gTndExtfxJOvg%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c907042-e54c-44e2-8969-6d02cd2db5b4%40www.fastmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3pjHXLeB7tqGEC2sZ8-3z%3D-LcS5VhT6TuOTeHSpdnNzQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAHWbU%3DYvSDmh970LTDogfM4Wub2te4GhAOeNJFLjgqoELYLShg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-08-12 Thread Mindey

The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe that
> truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be
> true independently of the universe


Definition is not nothing. Definition is an implicit program.

I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have a better
> definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it.


I define "nothing" as absence of information about any aspect

(projection axis, defining semantic dimension) whatsoever.

If the concept of zero exists then at least 'one' abstract entity must
> exist, the one number zero.


By this definition of "nothing", all possible projection axes (aspects, or
points of view to which the projection ought to be zero by definition of
"nothing") must therefore exist to define it. Thus, an assumption of
nothingness explodes not just into "one abstract entity", but all possible
imaginary entities with respect to which information amount can be
measured, and said to be zero.

This definition of "nothing", as a kind of inverse of "everything",
implies, or invites us to imagine all possible things.


On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 8:05 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:41 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > *You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects.*
>>
>
> I also said the universe could not exist if it only had one physical object
> because I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have
> a better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it.
>
> > *Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?*
>>
>
> If the universe had zero (or only one) physical things then even
> "meaning" would be meaningless, and so would "meaningless". But those
> things do have meaning therefore I can deduce that the universe does not
> consist of infinite unbounded homogeneity, and therefore the universe must
> contain more than just one thing;
>
> *> I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the number
>> zero,*
>>
>
> I don't either if you want to describe how the universe works because
> mathematics is the best language to do that. English is a useful language
> too but the word "cow" cannot give milk and the definition of a computation
> cannot perform a computation.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> apl
>
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv2jVApsd-UFgBbAKw6ZZZAH%3Di00vsTEffq2_R_TUKL81A%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CABDo93zktHCWGRbehX_1ymraJJV-qgAph__xPJv0_KsgqbLuUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:41 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> *You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects.*
>

I also said the universe could not exist if it only had one physical object
because I defined "nothing" as infinite unbounded homogeneity. If you have
a better definition of "nothing" I'd like to hear it.

> *Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?*
>

If the universe had zero (or only one) physical things then even "meaning"
would be meaningless, and so would "meaningless". But those things do have
meaning therefore I can deduce that the universe does not consist of
infinite unbounded homogeneity, and therefore the universe must contain
more than just one thing;

*> I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the number
> zero,*
>

I don't either if you want to describe how the universe works because
mathematics is the best language to do that. English is a useful language
too but the word "cow" cannot give milk and the definition of a computation
cannot perform a computation.

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

apl

-- 
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/CAJPayv2jVApsd-UFgBbAKw6ZZZAH%3Di00vsTEffq2_R_TUKL81A%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Below is what I wrote:
>>
>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
>> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
>> be true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
>> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>>
>>
>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" to
>> some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
>> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>>
>
> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
> values, or apply rules of inference.
>
> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?
>
>
> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".
>

Perhaps conventionally.

But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all
self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.).

This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to "why
quantum mechanics?"

Jason


> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8a7222b-87f6-aebc-3e2f-26723732e436%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgP-SbuidhgRwmSk-mFmpBFqBS_2ZdudgAZuopbUR5urQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:33 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept of zero
>> would necessarily exist to preserve the property of the number of physical
>> objects in that nothing. If the concept of zero exists then at least 'one'
>> abstract entity must exist, the one number zero. Now 'two' abstract numbers
>> exist, 'one' and 'zero'. Et cetera.*
>
>
> You're making the argument that there must be more than just one thing in
> the universe and therefore it can not consist of infinite unbounded
> homogeneity, and therefore the universe is not nothing, and therefore the
> universe is something, and therefore it exists. And that's all very fine
> but it's irrelevant because your claim was that 2+2=4 would exist even if
> the universe did not. I maintain it would not. I'm certainly not saying
>  2+2 =4 has no meaning, I'm saying it has a meaning precisely because the
> universe exists. I'm saying that physics is more fundamental than
> mathematics.
>

You defined nothing as a universe of zero physical objects. And have said a
number N is meaningless without at least N things in that universe to count.

Is zero meaningless in a universe with zero physical things?

You might argue that it is, but I would say zero is necessary for the
operation and preservation of such a universe of zero objects. Otherwise
without some rule saying "the number of physical objects is and shall
always be 0" what is to stop the nothing from becoming a universe having a
non zero number of objects?

I don't see any way from escaping the necessity of rules and the number
zero, for a nothing of the kind you describe.

Not do I see a way for zero to exist apart from all the other numbers. Zero
has properties, including factors. The factors of zero include all integers.

Jason

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiKM_%2Bodk_qVhaB%3DobMk8gONaNo5-%3D_hPrT8EbMMa3R-w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept of zero
> would necessarily exist to preserve the property of the number of physical
> objects in that nothing. If the concept of zero exists then at least 'one'
> abstract entity must exist, the one number zero. Now 'two' abstract numbers
> exist, 'one' and 'zero'. Et cetera.*

You're making the argument that there must be more than just one thing in
the universe and therefore it can not consist of infinite unbounded
homogeneity, and therefore the universe is not nothing, and therefore the
universe is something, and therefore it exists. And that's all very fine
but it's irrelevant because your claim was that 2+2=4 would exist even if
the universe did not. I maintain it would not. I'm certainly not saying
 2+2 =4 has no meaning, I'm saying it has a meaning precisely because the
universe exists. I'm saying that physics is more fundamental than
mathematics.

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

mta

-- 
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/CAJPayv3Z8zDON%3DxCqr7Nkj_brte-yK_KP99Re5HYLk7ez%2BCOdg%40mail.gmail.com.

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




On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing
to believe that truth values for mathematical relations like
“2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be true independently of the
universe or someone writing it down, or a mathematician
thinking about it, that is all you need.



But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value
"t" to some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing
but "t" arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of
inference that preserve "t". "t" has little to do with what it
true in the world.


The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign 
values, or apply rules of inference.


Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?


Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination".

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8a7222b-87f6-aebc-3e2f-26723732e436%40gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Below is what I wrote:
>
> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
> be true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.
>
>
> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" to
> some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t"
> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that
> preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.
>

The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign
values, or apply rules of inference.

Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhvvbyUDTZnrmvALn3GQ%2B4%3D0nb7%3DyT90BGrEKqNgLx6kw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:48 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> *> I think John rejects zombies,*
>
>
> Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am
> conscious and the evidence is overwhelming that Darwinian evolution is
> correct, but if you could have intelligent behavior without consciousness
> then natural selection could never have invented it, yet it did. Therefore
> the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is the inevitable
> byproduct of intelligence.
>
> * >so he would have to reject objective truth to believe a physical
>> computer is necessary to produce observers. Below is what I wrote:*
>
>  *The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
>> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
>> be true independently of the universe*
>
>
> But I don't believe that. If there were zero or even just one thing in
> the entire universe then the very concept of "2" would be meaningless, as
> would the concept of additon. In fact if there was just one thing then
> there would be nothing because the best definition of "nothing" that I
> know of is infinite unbounded homogeneity.
>


If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept of zero would
necessarily exist to preserve the property of the number of physical
objects in that nothing.

If the concept of zero exists then at least 'one' abstract entity must
exist, the one number zero.

Now 'two' abstract numbers exist, 'one' and 'zero'. Et cetera.

Jason


"The Tao begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the
myriad things."
-- Lao Tzu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjbN46GjCBaYiuMOhkcuTjyE2sr08yGEC6q-yqG%3D6dU%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch wrote:

*> I think John rejects zombies,*

Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am
conscious and the evidence is overwhelming that Darwinian evolution is
correct, but if you could have intelligent behavior without consciousness
then natural selection could never have invented it, yet it did. Therefore
the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is the inevitable
byproduct of intelligence.

* >so he would have to reject objective truth to believe a physical
> computer is necessary to produce observers. Below is what I wrote:*

*The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and
> be true independently of the universe*

But I don't believe that. If there were zero or even just one thing in the
entire universe then the very concept of "2" would be meaningless, as would
the concept of additon. In fact if there was just one thing then there
would be nothing because the best definition of "nothing" that I know of is
infinite unbounded homogeneity.

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

idb

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




On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to
believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 =
4” can exist and be true independently of the universe or someone
writing it down, or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all
you need.



But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" to 
some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t" 
arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that 
preserve "t".  "t" has little to do with what it true in the world.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/532c01a3-4124-c62c-264a-c925a58fd4ab%40gmail.com.

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

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started
> going in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs
> are perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be
> conceived of. Almost everything else can be seen as a special case of
> hypergraphs. Like you say, with the update rules, we shouldn't be surprised
> if they are equivalent to the UD. My scepticism is this: is anything being
> gained in terms of explanatory power? Should we be surprised that such a
> powerful representation can contain the rules of our reality? I do admit
> that I have to study these ideas in more detail, and there is something
> really compelling about hypergraphs + update rules.
>

That is a good question. I am not familiar with them myself, but my
understanding is they do not provide for any form of computation beyond
what is turing computable, so in that sense, I don't know that they provide
any additional explanatory power beyond the simple statement that all
computations exist.

A commenter on my site recently asked, what can we say about the "computer"
that computes all these computations. My reply was:

"There is no single one. There are infinite varieties of different TMs, and
all can exist Platonically/Arithmetically. Gregory Chaitin discovered an
equation whose structure models LISP computers. There are likewise other
equations corresponding to the Java Virtual Machine, and the Commodore 64.
All these Turing machines, and their execution traces of every computer
program they can run, exist in math in the same sense that the Mandelbrot
set or the decimal expansion of Pi exist in math. Despite the infinite
variety of architectures for different Turing machines, their equivalence
(in the Turing computability sense) makes the question of “Which Turing
machine is running this universe?” impossible to answer, beyond saying,
“all of them are.”"

I think hypergraphs, then, would be just one more mathematical object we
could add to the heap of Turing universal mathematical objects which could
(and would, if Platonism is correct) underlie the computations of our
universe/experiences.

>
> "As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will
> immediately ask “On what computer?” But a key intellectual point is that
> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly,
> without reference to anything like a physical computer. "
>

My same reply also provided an explanation/argument, which is applicable to
anyone who accepts simple truths concerning abstract objects have definite
and objective true/false values, paired with a rejection of philosophical
zombies. I think John rejects zombies, so he would have to reject objective
truth to believe a physical computer is necessary to produce observers.
Below is what I wrote:

The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe that
truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be
true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a
mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need.

For if the truth values of certain simple relations have an independent
existence, then so to do the truth values of far more complex equations.
Let’s call the Diophantine equation that computes the Wave Function of the
Hubble Volume of our universe “Equation X”. Now then, it becomes a question
of pure arithmetic, whether it is true or false that:

“In Equation X, does the universal state variable U, at time step T contain
a pattern of electrons that encode to the string:
‘why does the existence of Universal Equations imply the existence of
iterative search processes for solutions?'”

If that question has a definitive objective truth, then it is the case that
in the universe U, at time step T, in equation X, there is some person in
that universe who had a conscious thought, and wrote it down and it got
organized into a pattern of electrons which anyone who inspects this vast
equation with its huge variables could see.

Once you get to this point, the last and final step is to reject the
possibility that the patterns found in these equations, which behave and
act like they are conscious, and claim to be conscious, are philosophical
zombies. In other words, to accept that they are conscious beings, just
like those who exist in “physical” universes (assuming there is any
possible distinction between a physical universe, and a physical universe
computed by a Platonic or Arithmetic Turing Machine).

Jason

>
> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)
>
> Telmo.
>
> Am Do, 11. Aug 2022, um 20:35, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
>
>
> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the
> type of physical reality that emerges from then

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