Being picky, what are electrons made out of? I know that 10 years ago, U of Minnesota, in the US, tried to used supercooled helium to see if electrons gave evidence of sub particles. Last year, a trio of physicists in Italy deduced that electrons would last 5 quitillion times the current age of the univeres, 5 quint x 13.7 billion years. Are electrons arguably, material? If so, what material or particles are they made out of? Is something that will last 5 quint x 13.7 billion years material? Is such a endurance really something that our species has no true grasp of? Are we all, including physicists out of our depth, when we try to analyze the electron? Fourty years ago on the TV series Cosmos, Carl Sagan postulated that a primary particle like an electron, might each be a universe unto itself. It was kind of fun to consider, that if Sagan was correct, that piece of dog poo on the sidewalk, each contained universes and intelligent life-all trying to scrape it off their shoe. Should we worship the electron? The number suggested a figure that easily would be Time, Beyond, Mind, as the old saying goes. It is about as far a jaunt to Eternity, as our primate species is remotely capable of thinking of. I do concede that an electron is a true, thing, like a wombat is factual, or the Seine river is. If we say Googleplex, that basically is nothing because it describes a number space position in a line of numbers that we imagine. An electron has a gigantic shelf life, and this actually describes something. "On your faces before the mighty electron gawd, everyone!" Over n Out,
Mitch Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, May 31, 2016 05:29 PM Subject: Aristotle the Nitwit <div id="AOLMsgPart_2_6725d116-e684-4de3-9857-bfbb51492ecb"> <div class="aolReplacedBody"><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_default"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Bruno Marchal </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>> <font size="4"></font></div><font size="4">arithmetic<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> e</div>lementary<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> or otherwise, doesn't lead to complexity or to anything else. </div>Dawkins like Darwin was interests in what matter can do (like produce life), and without matter </font></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><div class="aolmail_gmail_default"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> ><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>> That idea has been refuted. <div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div class="aolmail_gmail_default"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">><font size="4"> Where?</font></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> Look for example at the papers here (and references therein): </div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">All the papers that I have seen written by you, or by anybody else, are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics, please point me to some that aren't but don't use matter to do so. </font></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"> </span> </div><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"> > (<span style="color:rgb(0,79,176)"><span style="text-decoration:underline"><a target="_blank" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.06.013";>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.06.013</a>)</span></span></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">No that just won't do, electrons are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. </font></div><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span><blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="aolmail_gmail_quote">><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>> </div> Even without primary matter, arithmetic leads to both the material complexity </blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><font size="4"><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>> </div>How can you have material complexity<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> if you don't have any material?</div></font></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></span> > because if the hypothesis of computationalism is true, there is no > (aristotelian) matter.</div></blockquote> <font size="4">Well of course there is no aristotelian matter! Aristotle was a nitwit when it came to physics and was wrong about everything.</font><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </div><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div>> Only appearance in the mind of machine, in the non physical and mathematical sense of Church, Turing, etc.</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4"> </font> <font size="4">OK, but how can you have a machine without matter that obeys the laws of physics?</font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">>> Show me an example of material complexity <div style="display:inline">but don't use any material (and that includes electrons) when you do so.</blockquote></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </div></span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> The atmoic physical proposition is given by the set of true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences p (i.e. having the shape: ExP(x) with P decidable) structured by the logic of Gödel's beweisbar predicate (B) in the following variant: Bp & ~B~(p), or Bp & p, or Bp & ~B~p & p. </div></div></div></blockquote> <span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:large">No that just won't do, electrons are made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. </span> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">>>> how does it select the material computations among the non material one.</blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"> </div></div></div></span><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" style="font-size:large">>> Easy, </font><span style="font-size:large">non material </span><span style="font-size:large">computations don't exist.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> In which theory? </div></div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">In no theory, in something far more important, in observation. </font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><font size="4"><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">>> </div>Now I have a question for you, how do "non material computations" select the computations that produce correct answers from the infinite number of computations that do not? </font></blockquote></div></div> </span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> That is equivalent to asking to the guy reconstituted in Washington why he is in Washington and not in Moscow. </div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">No that it isn't equivalent because that would be a stupid question and my question was not. There are an infinite number of ways to process numbers just as there are a infinite number of hypothetical ways life could change over time, but in fact life only does so by one method, random mutation and natural selection, and I can tell you why.</font> <font size="4"> </font> <font size="4">Random mutation exists because the laws of physics insist that perfection is unobtainable, and natural selection exists because nothing physical is infinite including the physical resources life needs to reproduce. So answer my question, there are an infinite number of ways to process numbers but only one way produces the correct answer and I want you to explain why "non material computations" only picks the correct one.</font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> If you assume a physical universe, you need to abandon the Mechanist hypothesis.</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">Doublethink: Love is hate, peace is war, and mechanics is not physical. </font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span><font size="4" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Some genes may increase the rate of copying errors but those genes have no foresight, they just make the machinery crank out more mistakes; on rare occasions one of those mistakes might get lucky and make reproduction more likely, but it's still random. </font></blockquote><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> That shows randomness has been used, not that everything is random in the evolution process.</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">You need to take a high school course in Evolution. Of course everything is not random in the evolution process! Natural selection is half of Evolution and it is <b>NOT</b> random.</font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:large">>> If there is an infinity of anything then it's not physical</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">,</span></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="aolmail_gmail_default"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote></div></div></span></div></div></div><div class="aolmail_gmail_default"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> Why?</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">I don't know why, all I know is that physicists have never shown anybody an infinite number of anything.</font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> No problem with your invocation of matter, if you want it, but then you need to abandon digital mechanism, or explain how the matter select the computations which exists in arithmetic</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">Matter can be arranged to make a digital mechanism whose output is inconsistent with arithmetic just as easily as one that is consistent with it. Easier actually. It all depends on how the matter is organized. </font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> as proved in most textbook of theoretical computer science</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">Textbooks made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. </font><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div class="aolmail_gmail_extra"><div class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="aolmail_gmail_quote">> <div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">t</div>o say that Evolution is just random mutation and natural selection is like saying that the program Deep Blue is just a bunch of Nands.</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="aolmail_gmail_quote"><div class="aolmail_gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> <font size="4">Yes, it is like saying that, and both statements are true. They're stated in a rather undramatic way perhaps, but are true nevertheless. </font></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote> > That is called reductionism. </span></div></blockquote> <font size="4">Yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. </font> <blockquote class="aolmail_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">> John, as long as you are stuck at the step 3 of the Universal Dovetailer Argument, there is no hope we progress in the discussion.</div></div></blockquote> <font size="4">Bruno, as long as you are unable to fix your blunder in step 3 of the Universal Dovetailer Argument, there is no hope we progress in the discussion.</font> <font size="4"> </font> <font size="4"> John K Clark</font> </div></div> <p></p> -- 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 <a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>. To post to this group, send email to <a target="_blank" href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>. Visit this group at <a target="_blank" href="https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list";>https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list</a>. For more options, visit <a target="_blank" href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout";>https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>. </div> </div> </div> -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
