On 5/26/2015 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2015, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/25/2015 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think? (Isn't there
something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain stable due to symmetry
principles, which are simpler than anything asymmetric (although physics contains
some asymmetries, of course, like matter vs antimatter).
But simplicity is not by itself something which will multiply you enough. Simplicity
is not enough. Then RA can be said to be simple but is of course quite non
symmetrical. (We could take more symmetrical ontology, but again, I prefer to start
from something not related to physics).
I'm not sure about this "person in an empty room" - surely they experience all sorts
of phenomena that can ultimately be traced to the laws of physics? An obvious one is
the pull of gravity (or lack thereof).
But I have to admit I can't see how one gets from the UDA to physics. The notion that
physics "falls out of" all the computations passing through a specific observer
moment seems approximately as difficult to explain as how physics operates if one
assumes "primary materialism" - but of course physics based on primary materialism
comes with the benefit that for 100s of years, people have believed the ontology to
be correct, and they have slowly built up a body of knowledge on that basis. Hence
comp finds itself doubly disadvantaged in that no one has worked out how it might
work in practice, and also in that most people react with an "argument from
incredulity" because they've been taught that physics is based on primary materialism.
The point is that "primary materialism", to operate, as to introduce a brain-mind
3p-1p identity thesis which is not sustainable when we assume comp.
Then the difference is almost between the difference between ONE computation does
this, and an infinity of computations of measure one does this.
Except that when we do the math, we inherit the intensional variants of the G*/G
distinction between truth and rational justififiability, which enrich the psycho and
theo - logical part of the picture, usually ignored or denied.
This is a bit like the situation with cars that run on something other than petrol,
or subcritical nuclear reactors. No one has put in a century of research to work out
how (say) alcohol driven cars might work, or 50 years of research on how thorium
reactors might work. Or 300 years of thinking on how reality might be derived from
computations.
Well the first three hundred cars run on hemp, and were made of hemp, and people
already asked at that time why using non renewable resource when renewable one where
disposable?
?? I don't think Karl Benz made any part of the first car from hemp and he ran it on
alcohol and benzene.
Henry Ford, as an experiment, made car with a body of plastic from soy beans, but not
hemp.
References? This contradicts all my own information sources.
From Wikipedia:
/Others argue that Ford invested millions of dollars into research to develop the plastic
car to no avail.//^[7] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_Car#cite_note-Allen-8> //He
proclaimed he would "grow automobiles from the soil" — however it never happened, even
though he had over 12,000 acres of soybeans for experimentation. Some sources even say the
Soybean Car wasn't made from soybeans at all — but of //phenolic plastic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_plastic>//, an extract of //coal tar
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar>//.//^[8]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_Car#cite_note-DeseretNews-9> //^[9]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_Car#cite_note-Bryan-10> //^[10]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_Car#cite_note-Maxwell-11>
...
//
//The exact ingredients of the plastic are not known since there were no records kept of
the plastic itself. Speculation is that it was a combination of soybeans, //wheat
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat>//, hemp, //flax
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax>//and //ramie <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramie>//.
Lowell Overly, the person who had the most influence in creating the car, says it was
"...soybean fiber in a //phenolic resin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_resin>//with //formaldehyde
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde>//used in the impregnation."/^/[13]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_Car#cite_note-ResearchCenter-15>//
/
It's possible that hemp was used in the plastic, but it's much more likely that it's a
myth created by advocates for the legalization and recreational use of marijuana.
/
/
^/Mr. Ford tested the pliability of the plastic panel by swinging on it with an axe. The
panel was unchanged after the blow, but a similar experiment on a steel panel cut through
the metal. ...Needed materials, he said, would include 100,000 bales of cotton, 500,000
bushels of wheat, 700,000 bushels of soy beans and 500,000 bushels of corn.
/ ^/-"Ford Shows Auto Built of Plastic - Strong Material Derived from Soy Beans, Wheat,
Corn is used for Body and Fenders," New York Times, 14 August 1941//.
http://theangryhistorian.blogspot.com/2010/10/hemp-car-myth-busted.html
/Brent/
/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.