On 02 Dec 2017, at 14:45, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 4:15:33 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 30 Nov 2017, at 18:41, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:30:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Very interesting. It confirms the christians might have added this
when their integrist took power, as the "golden rule" is a trap,
leading to the idea that we can think at the place of the other,
which is the base of the religious form of oppression, perhaps all
oppression. It is incredible that they got the rule right before
the christians. If you have some reference again (take it easy: I
know that kind of stuff is often hard to find back). No, jesus did
not improve the rule, and if jesus is responsible to this, then he
would have some responsibility in the rise of integrism. But I
doubt that Jesus made that improvement. That is more plausibly
something attribute to him by the integrist later. I suppose. I
will do some search on the "silver rule". I am glad you find the
Silver Rule more sensible.
Bruno
There is the golden rule: do unto others as you would want done to
you
the silver rule Do unto others as they request they do for them
the iron rule do not do to others what you would not want done to you
the lead rule: do things to others before they do things to you
Interesting. The last one looks like a joke, is it not?
If you have references, I am interested. (The "Löbian rule" is
missing: don't do to others what they would not want to be done to
them, although the silver rule seems to be the closest).
I think it is more the iron rule. This is actually the rule voiced
by Rabbi Hillel
OK. I will do some research.
I see came with some news today about Garrison Keillor, who is
accused of sex abuse now. It appears the offense stems from his
rubbing the back of a woman coworker on Prairie Home Companion
where his hand inadvertently touched the skin on her lower back.
This is not just grey in morality, but white with a few dots on it.
Franken is a bit worse, though I think it is excusable with a bit
of contrition. Moore is more grey, though so far I don't think
there are recent accusations. It gets greyer and more black with
Weinstein, Trump and Cosby. Then comes the news that the rightwing
fake news group that did the whole thing against ACORN has tried to
get a woman to make an accusation with the intention of exposing
this as a Democratic fake attack.
What does this mean for AI? It means robotic sex partners and
significant others. Seriously, it things are on the cusp of going
completely crazy I think any man would be wise to run from the
whole thing of dating and the rest and just have your Stepford
Wife, if you remember that little dystopian movie. As for the next
generation, well Huxley got that figured out. Children will be
raised in corporate nurseries. Maybe if not the whole human race
might just elect to close it all down. That won't happen, but if I
were in AI right now I would be seeing a huge opportunity for
robotic SOs.
For a time maybe. Until the robotic doll does strikes and fight for
social security, and sue the users.
My current feeling, in part related to computer science, but also on
altered state of consciousness (notably brought by salvia), is that
the universal machine is somehow maximally conscious and maximally
intelligent (but also maximally incompetent). Then, augmenting his
competence diminishes its intelligence. We can't really have both.
Yet, human consciousness requires long histories (deep in Bennett
sense, if you know what it is, if not I can give reference). But de
Chardin said, we are not human having spiritual experience, but are
spiritual being having human experience.
It will take a long time before the man made machine and its
descendants become as stupid as the humans. The christian are right
on this, perhaps, the heaven might belong to the simple minds. The
brain does not create consciousness, but it filters the truth and
focus the attention. But consciousness is only a selector, and with
the brain, becomes an accelerator (for the best and/or the worst).
Bruno
PS I will probably take more time for your QCD post.
The role of Gödel's theorem in physics is closely tied to black
holes I think.
That is not entirely impossible, but, I don't know. I can liked it to
the quantum formally (and informally through thought experiences).
Then black holes might suggest way to make infinite computations in
their vicinity, which would possible makes possible for *machines* to
exploit this to overcome some machine limitations (although not from
their own relative perspective). But they will not travel through the
Gödel barrier, which mimits not just machines, but all arithmetical
gods, including the big one, which already overwhelmed by the
"intelligible reality", in the "theology of the machine".
The classic physical analogue is the case of the switch that is
turned off according to Zeno's prescription. It is off at t = 0, on
at t = 1/2 off at t = 3/4 and so forth so it has an infinite number
of change in the one time interval. This is a divergence of
frequency and at some point the energy involved exceeds the mass-
energy permitted in the region of the switch and it becomes a black
hole.
That is the first time I see this solution. It is nice, but quick,
especially for a modest mathematician.
There is within the context of quantum information some relationship
between Gödel theorem or self-reference and black holes may occur.
The Penrose diagram below illustrates this further. Suppose we have
an observer in region I who enters the black hole by crossing the
outer horizon r_+ = m + sqrt{m^2 - a^2}. The observer in region II
may then cross the inner horizon r_- = m - sqrt{m^2 - a^2} to enter
region III or region IV because this horizon is split. The outer
horizon is split as well where there is this additional region II.
Looking more locally our observer who enters region III will cross
this inner horizon that is continuous with I^+ in region I. This
means there is an infinite amount of full geodesics that pile up on
r_-, which can carry information. We then have an asymptotic version
of the above situation with the light switch. We can also think of
this as a situation where the observer approaching r_- may then
receive an infinite string of qubits in a finite time period.
Obviously from a physical perspective this appears to be an UV
divergence. However, we may think of our intrepid observer as
performing a sort of Cantor diagonalization. Our observer may also
cross the other r_- where upon there is a pile up of null geodesics
from region II.
We could think of regions I and II as entangled regions, and so the
single black hole appears in two regions as two entangled black
holes. This means the states composing the two black holes are
completely entangled. It would be hard to generate such a black
hole, but with careful state preparation and Zeno-machine quantum
prevention of Hawking radiation it is theoretically possible. The UV
divergence on the interior horizon is then a form of mass-inflation.
This is a somewhat difficult topic to discuss in detail here.
I am afraid so. You might write a paper. I am not an expert in
classical or quantum black hole, to be sure. Seems interesting but
quite speculative.
However, a physical sense of this pile up of null geodesics gives a
sense of this. However, the question now is whether for this
entangled situation this still occurs and reflects the limitations
of accounting quantum information. In other words is Gödel's theorem
applied to this situation a case of how quantum error correction
codes have limitations; no quantum error correction code can ever
completely account for the processing of quantum gravitational
information.
Gödel's theorem typically is a theorem on digital machine, or on
mathematical-theories, and with mechanism, eventually the Gödelian
incompleteness will play some role in justifying the many self-
referential modes in which the arithmetical reality can look at
itself, and this gives the "many branches" (truth, theory, knowledge,
observation, sensation), and physics has to be extracted from
arithmetic (you might study some papers of mine on this).
Mechanism, contrarily to a widespread (in space and time)
misunderstanding is not compatible with weak form of materialism, or
belief in some primary matter, or physicalism. Very elementary
arithmetic embodies (in the relative way) already all computations,
and thus all dreams (assuming mechanism) and we have to justified the
persistence of the "physical hallucination" from pure mathematics/
computer science.
But then, curiously enough, the math shows that we get the quantum
rather quickly (and the "many-world" appearances), but also that there
is a non computable oracle. is it only the first person indeterminacy
or something subtler making it possible to build infinite machine?
Open question.
Bruno
LC
--
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.
