On 22 Dec 2012, at 11:58, Roger Clough wrote:

## Advertising

Hi Bruno MarchalThanks very much. Then could we not simply continue your train ofthoughtto say that 1) all universal Turing machines require an extraneous UTM to interpret them, etc. etc. etc.

`That's why we have to assume at least one. But it happen that`

`elementary arithmetic, in which we already believe, can do the work.`

`That is why assume you believe and still remember that 0+1 = 1, etc.`

2) this would extend the number of material parts needed(to process code) to infinity, requiring more matter than is presentinthe entire universe.

`Not at all. We don't have to assume any matter nor universe. It is`

`redundant and leads to suprious difficulties, not just in the mind-`

`body problem.`

3) Which is impossible, but yet we are able to think. Therefore the above material limit does not pertain to mind.

There is no matter. Only appearance of matter is stable dreams.

4) Thus mind does not depend on matter.

`Indeed. Human mind depend on apparent matter locally, but the whole of`

`matter is a construct of the number's mind distributed in a complex`

`way in arithmetic.`

The weakness of my argument would seem to be that any calculation --if we accept that each step or bit is context-dependent, and that context- dependent, etc. etc. -- would seem to be ultimately noncomputable. But computers can still do accurate calulations.

`You are partially correct. It is true that for all self-aware being`

`supported by a computations, there is an unavoidable noise due to the`

`first person equivalent computation occuring below the self-aware`

`entity comp substitution level. This we can measure, and that is what`

`makes comp testable indeed.`

The mandelbrot sets are beautiful, but any infinite series as in chaos theory is no less miraculous appearing. I'm perhaps looking for one with limits.

`I think the mandelbort set is universal for chaos and perhaps`

`computation. Of course it would not be the only one.`

Bruno

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/22/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-21, 13:25:36 Subject: Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No. On 20 Dec 2012, at 19:01, Roger Clough wrote:Hi A simpler way to make my point is the axiom that no information can be stand alone, it must have context to give it meaning.The information needs a universal machine to interpret it.Universal machines needs also a universal machine to be themselvesinterpreted.That is why we have to assume at least one universal machine.Then if you accept Church thesis, it is a long, tedious, and not soeasy task to prove that the elementary arithmetic taught in schoolis Turing universal, so we can start from this well know one.But that context can not be stored alone, it in turn must have context. And so forth. Thus one bit of information cannot simply be physically stored, it would extend to take up the entire physical universe.I don't follow you here. Your argument above only shows that wecannot store the one bit of information + some interpreter of thatbit, + the universal environment supporting that bit, etc.But we don't need bits, we need only relative bits, and this storeeasily in any universal machine's memory.But our brains do apparently store enormous amounts of information. The above argument suggests that the bulk of this must be stored Platonically (mentally).OK. Because our states makes sense only relatively to many otherstates, and all that fit in arithmetic.BTW, I conjecture that this fits also on the border of theMandelbrot set, making it a nice picture of a compact universaldovetailing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6uO7ZHtK8&list=PL70D5F39E3EFE6136&index=1[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 12:40:21 Subject: Jason and the Dragon's Teeth Hi meekerdb How can you store info on a particle ?Let's make this as simple as possible and say that you decide towritesome "information" on a piece of paper in the form of 1's and 0's. Is that really information ? No. Not unless you provide additional information such as a) a definition of what information is b) where the information is (address) c) could this just be junk ? d) how to read the 1's and 0's apart from the blank spaces e) what spurious info from the blank spaces means j) how to tell that spurious information from 1's and 0's. e) how to..... For every step I add, hoping to clear up the issue once and for all, other problems come to life, as in the Greek myth of Jason and the Dragon's teeth: http://www.mythweb.com/heroes/jason/jason14.html "The Dragon's TeethAeetes, it turns out, had got his hands on some dragon's teeth withunique agricultural properties.As soon as these hit the soil they began to sprout, which was goodfrom the point of view ofJason accomplishing his task by nightfall, but bad in terms of theharvest. For each seed germinatedinto a fully-armed warrior, who popped up from the ground andjoined the throng now menacing poor Jason. "You need info to store and read info, and info on what that means, etc. about the warrior killling enemy, and for each enemy that n gtell info have an decoding aparatus. Suppose you decide to store information on a computer disk. You say 'all I have to do is put a + charge here and nothing there." I don't think it's that simple. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 17:10:58 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi meekerdb and Stephen, >> >> If information is stored in quantum form, >> I can't see why the number of particles >> in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. >> >>>> Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're aPlatonist like>> Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes -> no information. >> >> Also there are ways of storing information >> holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. >> >>>> The holographic principle says that the information that can beinstantiated>> in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surfacein Planck>> units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the averageinformation>> density in the universe (which is dominated by low energyphotons from the>> CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times thedensity>> equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surfacearea we>> find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius atwhich>> things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansionrate of the>> universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. >> >> Brent > Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. >> I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than theage> of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the > Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but > that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs, > which is rather close.They would be the same except that the expansion rate has not beenconstant (it has beenslightly increasing). > > Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic> Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble andthat> 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars willalso> disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger > than 13.7 billion light-years?I don't understand the significance of 200Myrs? The CMB isn't goingto disappear, ever.It's just going to be more and more redshifted by the expansion ofthe universe. There'san excellent tutorial on these questions by Ned Wright at UCLA http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm > > And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here,> shouldn't we use the present size of the universeholographically. I> think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereasthe> Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe.I don't know where 10^124 comes from, but 10^120 is what I get forthe holographic limit.Brent --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.