Publish, please. OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not physics) is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital mechanism.
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:18 am Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be interesting to read on your own personal view. OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive science, not physics) is very plausible, even if the consequences are strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital mechanism. Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound, musings, on all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do believe that what makes someone great, or even good at math, maybe, inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher ends of human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring together, for effective, pattern memorization. My distaste is not incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional by being incapable. ;=) Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use math to select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss said, math is the simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god, when people have been brainwashed with wrong assertion since long, they close their mind and keep up their prejudices. Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical philosophy. Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a sim (naw!) This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an infinity of simulations, and physics emerge from the computations statistics, which cannot be a simulation a priori. it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of your universal machine. We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but with human universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the best case), and insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case). History of humanity is a sequence of fail attempts by humans to control humans. Today, we know or should know, assuming some reasonable theory, that this is impossible (and to me that is a relief). Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way, much of your commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the writings of Stephen Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already know. Steinhart is a naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who views darwinian evolution, evolving vast computers, which in turn, evolve smarter and smarter vast computers, of which you and I are a product of. They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains Aristotelian in their theology. On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the onslaught (my term) of Jihadists? Not to well. But that is another topic. Imo, as long as we don't get rational on health and medication, we will fuel the international crimes and terrorism. My old point is that we need better theologies, not Religions, by default, I take theology and religion as the same thing. But if by religion you mean a special theology + a theurgy, it is OK. Like the greek early neoplatonist theologians, I am skeptical on theurgy, but why not, as long as the priest can blink (cf Alan Watts). We don't need new theologies, but a scientific attitude (modesty) in the field. to put forth (here I go again!) plausible, afterlife theories, which in the long term, I am convinced, will ameliorate the situation, that I perceive upon your continent. The trick is, it would be something we all would believe as well. This must work for atheists and agnostics, as well as the deeply religious. I am OK. I use "god" in the greek original sense, so atheism does not exist. We all believe in some reality, and that is "divine-like" because nobody can prove the existence of a reality. Is it a person? Has it personal aspect? Complex question which needs to be addressed, but we are not yet there. With this in mind, Professor, have a Joyeux Noel, a happy Chanukah, a Prosperous Newtonmass, a glorious, Leonard Susskind Day, May, Carlo Rovelli guide your wisdom, may, Sir Andrew Wiles, guide your chalk stick! May, William D. Gropp, guide your keyboard! Adieu! Happy Christmass to you too, but let us not accept any terrestrial guides but ourselves, because *you* are the real guide and hero in this story. Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Dec 18, 2016 1:12 pm Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical philosophy. and I either found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend, You can ask question. Do you have a problem with the definition of the weak computationalist assumption? when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn that weak cerebrum!), and so forth. I don't believe in weak cerebrum. I think you just showed, indeed just above, some emotional unpalatableness, if I can say. My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate for me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on in the world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight have decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents, to sort thing out. yes, but history shows also that the tragic doing is sometime just perpetuated by such "good intentions". The passage from unicellular to pluricellular was also a way to sort things out, but it made us going out of the ocean and it can lost us on Mars, Titan, or far beyond. Nothing is simple. Beyond universality, simplifying is itself a root of complexifying. I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, computing is the way to go. the only way at this point. To compute you need a universal machine, and that machine is only one more unknown in a equation of 8 billions of unknowns. 99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of things, once more, I persist anyway. We have partial control. The attempt to get total control either kill universality/freedom, or get inconsistent/delire/catastrophes. You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is. I am not sure this makes sense. At some level we all have to do that. At a different level, we all try to improve the human condition relative to this or that possible "reality". The main lesson here given by the universal machine, but also by Alan Watts (The wisdom of insecurity) or Robert Valadier (Inéluctable morale) is ... well, it is sum up in the popular saying "Hell is paved with good intention". One way to help, avoiding that warning, is to study the right, and politics, and trying to fix the system, which has been taken into hostage since sometimes. Today the fundamental powers (media, politics, judiciary, academic, etc.) are no more separated, which is mandatory for a democracy (Montesquieu). I sift through science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular online source, attempting to look for possibilities of things, such as cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky, but something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh. Everything can be used for a laugh (grin). Not sure why you want a MAC address in the sky, well, not sure a sky belongs to the category of things providing addresses. I Hope you don't believe that God lives on some cloud (re-grin). Bruno I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here&now or a pleasure here&now, that we can know but not communicate rationally, nor justified). -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our region of the universe, by understanding the rules? I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation. Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the relation between us and that reality. I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here&now or a pleasure here&now, that we can know but not communicate rationally, nor justified). I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity and fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often, it can happen they get cursed by the beauty of their theories, which can help but can also become an handicap----that will depend on many things. So it is neither for the enjoyment of some science per se, nor for helping humanity, it is by curiosity of what is real, with, in the background some enjoyment for what we can see/conceive in the process, and the idea that better knowing what is real can only help humanity if she needs help. Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Russell Standish <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 7:36 pm Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:47:03PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The question you asked was (I quote): > > >>>I don't see why you would say physicalism needs to be assumed to > >>>explain the predictive power of physics. > > > Let me try to explain again. > > How do a physicist make a prediction about his future first person > experience? > > To fix the things, why am I pretty sure I will fell like seeing an > eclipse when predicted by Newton's law. > > The usual materialist/physicalist answer is roughly like this. There > is the assumption of a physical reality(*) and that it contains or > realized objects obeying laws. I don't think this is the case. For example, in the theory of statics, used to construct bridges, solid objects with properties of tensile strength, (mass) density, elasticity and so on are assumed, even though ontologically, they are known to be composed of mostly empty space, with those very ontological properties the result of electromagnetic fields. Most other physical models are the same - the example Brent gave of using continuous fluid mechanics to predict hurricances is an excelent point. Of course we know that the atmosphere is not a continuum, but rather made up of a collection of molecules with emergent properties that makes the continuous description a good one. It may be that some physicists think that the objects of the Standard Model (leptons, quarks, bosons etc) are somehow fundamental, but I doubt that many would stick to their guns on that. But the Standard Model is used quite rarely for making predictions, and is generally computationally infeasible. Classical dynamics is much more widely used. So I cannot see why someone pointing to the predictive power of physics is in any way making an ontological statement of the form of physicalism. IIRC, in the original context, Brent was trying to tongue-in-cheek say that the laws of fluid dynamics is God, even though I know he strongly asserts that God must be a person, so it must have been some sort of satirical response. Nevertheless, I didn't see anywhere where he claimed that the models of physics were ontological. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. -- 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.
