On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a >>>>>> écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin >>>>>>>>>>> Anciaux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson < >>>>>>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anciaux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marchal wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marchal wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thrift wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thrift wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disappears in the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of measurement. AG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's nice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement is done in this world, it splits into two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worlds, each with one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the possible measurements. I see only one world being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created, with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world remaining intact, and then comes the second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement, with its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same world created >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the first measurement. So for N trials, the number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worlds created is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible outcomes: O1 and O2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have equal status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote, which is pretty simple. AG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI. Publish it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and call it something else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen, MUST happen. So, when an observer measures UP (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DN) in THIS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, another world comes into existence wherein an observer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DN (or UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the results >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MWI, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could MWI be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer cannot feel the split, nor observe it directly. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if QM (without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse) is correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how “nature” makes some terms in the superposition disappear. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mechanism) + Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> … in the elementary arithmetical reality). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profoundly dumb, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another thread who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifies for sanity. AG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what? All what I say follows from this “intuitively”, but is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also recovered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modelling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “rational belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do know philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophy, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to show a theory and its testability, and indeed I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show exactly how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to test experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Materialism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (physicalism), and I show that quantum mechanics confirms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mechanism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing that the old and venerable Mechanist theory (in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biology, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology) is experimentally testable, and that QM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without-collapse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirms it, like I show also that quantum logic confirms it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is your take on the WM-duplication? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would be nice. Leave the insults to those who have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand-waving. Do unicorns exist because they can exist? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exists in which sense? They certainly are fictive object. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unicorn does not exist, because by definition they belong to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairy tales. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am not sure what you try to convey, or perhaps to insinuate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Hand waning” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a bit of an insult. Please quote the sentences that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or that you don’t understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you assimilating the true number relation with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiction? Then stop doing science, because those number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed in all theories that I know of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are genetic codes which create unicorns, do they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist, somewhere? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Unicorn does not exist by definition. Some horse have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one corn, due to congenital malformation, but we don’t use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that unicorn exist. It would be playing with word. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well maybe, given enough time. I'll grant you that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems wiser, I mean to understand that the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists, once you agree with simple rules like x + 0 = x, x + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> s(y) = s(x + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y), etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road. I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a primary physical world where observations yield those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. As a rudimentary result, there is only one world, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world. Also, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you speak of computations, but where is the computer doing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations? MW is like what Nietzsche said of Christianity; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rococo of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind. AG * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you accept a physical reality emerging from nothing, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> located nowhere (as if it has any meaning)... but not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strange how one can be blinded by his own prejudice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Speaking of prejudices, tell me where and what is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> computer doing the computation? AG* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The same place and thing that magically support the physical >>>>>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *You made the claim that computations exist. So please tell me >>>>>>>>>>> what is doing the computations and where it is located. Hand-waving >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> acceptable. AG * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You made the claim that physical reality exists ontologically... >>>>>>>>>> Can you back it up ? Hand-waving not acceptable >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I never used the word or concept "ontological". We observe the >>>>>>>>> world. You claim Many Worlds based on "computations". It's YOUR >>>>>>>>> claim! What >>>>>>>>> is doing the computations and where is it located?* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why should they be located anywhere or done by anything ? It's your >>>>>>>> claim they should. Stop hand waving ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Face it. You have a vacuous claim. It's not located anywhere and >>>>>>> doesn't do anything? And you implicitly claim this is an application of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> scientific method? AG * >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Face it you have a serious claim, stop dodging and hand waving. Why >>>>>> should an ontological computation be located somewhere and done by >>>>>> something, and not an ontological physical reality ? It's the same >>>>>> thing, >>>>>> so when you'll answer without hand waving, I'll do the same. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *What is doing the computation? Why is it necessary. You can't explain >>>>> its necessity or remotely identify it. Dream on, and go FY. AG * >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why should *something* be doing an ontological computation and an >>>> ontological physical reality wouldn't have the same requirement ? You >>>> can't explain its necessity or remotely identify it. Dream on, and go. >>>> >>> >>> It's asking where is the ontological physical reality substrate of the >>> ontological computations which are the base of the reality, don't you see >>> the absurdity of the question when the hypotheses is that the physical >>> reality is not ontologically real but an appearance from an ontological >>> mathematical reality ? The mathematical reality is located nowhere ex >>> hypothesi, it's the base of the real, computation are process existing >>> statically in the mathematical reality ex hypothesi. >>> >> >> *Your hypothesis is that there must exist mathematical computations to >> sustain the universe. Unless and until you can justify this hypothesis, >> it's nothing more than hot air. But even if I accepted your hypothesis, >> I'd like to know what is being computed. Here too, you fail to offer >> anything at all, let alone plausible. AG* >> > > What is being computed is our consciousness. Physical reality is an > appearance inside our consciousness. The ontologically real physical > reality is also no more than an hypothesis, nothing more than hot air... > but contrary to you I do not attach myself to any hypothesis, I entertain > them and see where it could lead... I'm not an advocate of this or that > contrary to you, I'm not here to defend anything except the right to > discuss it. Stop being a old rat by adding violence to every post you make > on this list... be an adult and try to discuss instead of fighting like > your live depends on it. > > Quentin >
*You surely have a claim which you defend with gusto. All I have done is ask for the basis of your claim -- such as that our consciousness is being computed -- but I haven't seen it. I am not necessarily saying your wrong. I am just asking why you seem so certain you are right. I'm not even clear what it means to compute consciousness. AG * -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd75c02e-43fd-40ac-bb0d-d0dc74aad495%40googlegroups.com.
