-----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.
