Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random choices. That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does quite well. It's not Church-Turing, but it might be the way the world works. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start! But decoherence also falsifies MW. Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is collapse. First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave equation. Or matrix equation or path integral equations. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random choices. If reality computes, then reality is a computer/universal-number. If reality is physical reality, then this is the digital physics thesis, which is self-contradictory (due to the UDA). Also, computing and obtaining a random result is contradictory by itself, as computing is determinated. It can make sense with a quantum computer, or with self-duplication, (or both like in Everett), so you might clarify here. Are you (Edgar, Brent) assuming a quantum computer? With comp this is a sort of treachery, as far as we are concerned with the fundamental reality. Bruno That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does quite well. It's not Church-Turing, but it might be the way the world works. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is many-world. If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic. With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a unique local physical cosmos. Bruno On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result I am referring to Bell's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem explained well here: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the state of the other particle 2. when
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science (mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by incompleteness). True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put: arithmetic number's dreams = physics OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science. Bruno Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1- view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time). You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6. So what about step 7? How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer? Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Bruno, I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and well behaved. On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is many-world. If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic. With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a unique local physical cosmos. Bruno On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. At last a straight answer, the answer is 1. So there is only one unique 1-view from the 1-view on planet Earth right now; that is to say if a one to one correspondence was attempted between the infinite set of UNIQUE integers and the set of all the UNIQUE 1-views from the 1-view on planet Earth right now only ONE such pairing can be made. So the set of all UNIQUE one views of the one view has only 1 element in it. Well who is this one, who is he, what's his name? I'd love to meet him (or her), can you introduce me? infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Yet another straight answer, this time the answer is infinity; unfortunately it's a very different answer to the exact same question. So is the answer 1 or infinity or your previous answer of 7 billion? OK? No, that is very far from OK. So what about step 7? I don't see why anybody should read step 7 of your proof when it has already been demonstrated that you throw around terms like the 1-view from the 1-view that you can't put a number to. If you can't put a number to it you have no clear understanding of it. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught us it's that whatever the true nature of reality is it's outlandish! If Many Worlds isn't true then something even weirder is. and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Is Many Worlds more laughable than the present changing the past, or you and me and the entire universe being a simulation in a gargantuan supercomputer somewhere, or the mainstream Copenhagen idea that things only become real when you look at it? Copenhagen is nuts because things aren't real enough, Many Worlds is nuts because things are too real and everything that could exist does exist. As I say if Many Worlds isn't true then something even weirder is. every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! That would be ridiculous and nobody would dream of suggesting such a looney idea if they weren't desperate. They were desperate. Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. I know, it's nuts, but is it true? There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! I know, it's nuts, but is it true? Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things Common sense is of absolutely no help in questions of this sort, Evolution didn't make our monkey brains to deal with them. to see how stupid they are? I would use the word crazy not stupid and Many Worlds is certainly crazy, but is it crazy enough to be true? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially Face the facts, something important about the way we think the world works has got to go, and to my mind dumping the conservations laws is less drastic than dumping the idea the the moon exists even when I'm not looking at it. And besides conservation laws are not based on some logical imperative but were just empirically derived, and they could still hold within each branch of the multiverse. it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. I have no idea what you mean by that. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: With decoherence everything is a wavefunction No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the exact same probability when you square it. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
John, Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM. I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: With decoherence everything is a wavefunction No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the exact same probability when you square it. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in it? What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed? Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own theories? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Bruno, when you wrote: *...arithmetic number's dreams = physics* *OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. * *And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science...* for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!) incoherent. That entire unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist' seems overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short with his remark that first: we need an identification for whatever we call: god. Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL stuff we may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them. Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism). My idrentification for what many people call god is known to this list: infinite complexity - not better than anyone else's: it is MY belief. Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN stuff, humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer to some universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to our human ways of thinking. Respectfully John Mikes On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science (mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by incompleteness). True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put: arithmetic number's dreams = physics OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science. Bruno Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time). You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6. So what about step 7? How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident in the main points of my theories though still working on some of the details, and of course their validity is always subject to empirical evidence and consistency both internally, and with the equations of science (but NOT with a number of their interpretations) as are all theories, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence that falsifies, or even casts serious doubts on the main points of my theories I do however agree they need to be developed more and even more carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, though I've already done plenty of that in developing them and testing them. All the points you kindly raise really don't apply as I don't think you've really grasped my theories, and are instead arguing against your misunderstandings of my theories. Best, Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in it? What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed? Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own theories? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;borde ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. The MWI assumes a background space-time in which the universal wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which *supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation. On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally characterised as parallel universes coming into existence but that isn't a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction). number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of them on this very list. Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch? That's what Americans would call MWI 101 or The MWI for dummies. If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of worlds which can only ever differentiate, not split or branch or any of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR) is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2 to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into 2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that 99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in our universe (which the MWI claims is a convenient fiction, of course) - but how can 2^500 states exist at the same time for the same qubits (which are normally atoms, but could in theory be photons, electrons, etc) ? Where is the calculation performed? This is a massive parallel
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally characterised as parallel universes coming into existence but that isn't a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction). number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of them on this very list. Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch? That's what Americans would call MWI 101 or The MWI for dummies. If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of worlds which can only ever differentiate, not split or branch or any of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR) is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2 to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into 2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that 99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in our universe (which the MWI claims is a convenient fiction, of course) - but how can 2^500 states exist at the same time for the same qubits (which
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation. You might consult a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is not necessary to test and apply a theory. The interpretation is only of philosophical interest because it may lead to other, better theories. Brent On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do you get from there to the definite observation? And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT in the equations. That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the pointer basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation. Brent EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Liz, OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. That is precisely what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is. But the next step is we have to discard the background spacetime notion and replace it with individual private spacetimes created as entanglement networks. But this is NOT MW, what actually happens is those mini-spacetimes merge via common events to create the single world. I know this probably isn't clear, but it's immensely important and is the theory that I propose in Part III: Elementals of my book. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:11:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. The MWI assumes a background space-time in which the universal wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which *supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation. On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results but of course we do... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do you get from there to the definite observation? And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT in the equations. That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the pointer basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation. Brent EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish alternative interpretation Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Brent, Allow me to use your words directly: Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? AFAIK, the first possibility could be seen as what a single observer might perceive and calculate of its world. The latter tries to take the perceptions of many observers and organize them into a single structure. I see no necessary conflict between them. On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation. You might consult a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is not necessary to test and apply a theory. The interpretation is only of philosophical interest because it may lead to other, better theories. Brent On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Edgar, Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did you have with this idea? On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? I disagree. Deocherence explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it is a real phenomenon. It was first developed by Bohm, and it was used by Everett in his thesis. If collapse never happens then there are many worlds. You continue to ignore this point despite that I and others have repeatedly pointed it out. To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident in the main points of my theories though still working on some of the details, and of course their validity is always subject to empirical evidence and consistency both internally, and with the equations of science (but NOT with a number of their interpretations) as are all theories, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence that falsifies, or even casts serious doubts on the main points of my theories I do however agree they need to be developed more and even more carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, though I've already done plenty of that in developing them and testing them. All the points you kindly raise really don't apply as I don't think you've really grasped my theories, and are instead arguing against your misunderstandings of my theories. It is true I do not grasp your theories, but I believe the points I have raised apply in general to all QM interpretations. E.g., no collapse yields many-worlds, no FTL implies to many-worlds, hidden local single-valued variables are impossible, the possibility of quantum computers requires the reality of the superposition, and so on. Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in it? What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed? Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own theories? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the position observable as important for thought process and measurement. Bruno Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;borde ... -- You received
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important. In Copenhagen you have to apply the Born rule and then say those are the probabilities of my observation and *one* of them occurs. Everett says they all occur and different instances of *you* observe them. So which is your theory. You did not answer my question below. Brent On 12/28/2013 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results but of course we do... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do you get from there to the definite observation? And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT in the equations. That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the pointer basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation. Brent EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes? Brent -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Stephen, In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense. This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its information only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could equally say that 'everything is its computation only, and the computation is the thing'. I have no problem with that, it's a good way to express it. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:03:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Edgar, Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did you have with this idea? On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groupshttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
OK, I like Omnes too, and Fuchs and Peres. But their view is that the wavefunction is just a calculational device thru which we make predictions. So the collapse of the wavefunction is just us learning new results and revising our prediction. But you seem to have a more physical model of what happens, ...when the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame. Does this alignment have a randomness? Brent On 12/28/2013 4:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish alternative interpretation Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results... But it produces probabilities. And the experiments confirm that the measured values are random with the distribution predicted. But each measurement only produces one of the probable values. So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values? Omnes just says what do you expect QM is a probabilistic theory. Everett says they all happen every time with different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences. What do you say? Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is happening is independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and there is no deterministic way to align separate independent spaces (in the absence of a common background reference space which does not exist), thus nature is forced to act probabilistically. This phenomena is the source of all randomness. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:19:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important. In Copenhagen you have to apply the Born rule and then say those are the probabilities of my observation and *one* of them occurs. Everett says they all occur and different instances of *you* observe them. So which is your theory. You did not answer my question below. Brent On 12/28/2013 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results but of course we do... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do you get from there to the definite observation? And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT in the equations. That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the pointer basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation. Brent EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. Right. So are you saying there is some 'hidden math', like hidden variables, or t'Hooft's ultradeterminism, or Bohm's universal potential, that secretly determines which of the probabilities predicted by our QM is actually realized? Is it in principle possible for us to find this reality math or is it forever hidden? Brent This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/28/2013 5:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is happening is independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and there is no deterministic way to align separate independent spaces (in the absence of a common background reference space which does not exist), thus nature is forced to act probabilistically. This phenomena is the source of all randomness. Ok, so your theory is inherently random. It doesn't have some hidden determinism. And it's not just the uncertainty of our predictions. It's really random, so some things happen and some don't. I have no problem with the possibility of fundamental randomness - but you'll find others on this list (like Bruno) that consider it as preposterous as you consider many-worlds. :-) But I've pointed out that there is a somewhat arbitrary step in decoherence, the tracing over the environmental variables. This has to be done in a certain basis in order to get a diagonal density matrix for the system+instrument. Finding or justifying this basis is usually referred to as the basis problem. It is hoped that the form of the interaction Hamiltonian between the system+instrument and the environment will define the right basis, e.g. if the interaction potential is a function of position then a coordinate position basis will be the one that diagonalizes the density matrix. But this hasn't really been worked out yet, and your theory would seem to have more difficulties in doing this because you don't want to assume spacial coordinates, but rather derive them. Incidentally, if you haven't read it already, I highly recommend the review article by Maximilian Schlosshauer, arXiv:quant-ph/0312059v4, on decoherence theory. There's also an interesting report of the opinions of physicists about interpretations of QM in 2011 comparing them to Max Tegmark's poll in 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/1301.1069v1 Brent Pluralitas non sunt ponenda sine necessitate --- William of Ockham -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally characterised as parallel universes coming into existence but that isn't a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction). number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of them on this very list. Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch? That's what Americans would call MWI 101 or The MWI for dummies. If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of worlds which can only ever differentiate, not split or branch or any of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR) is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2 to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into 2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that 99.999...%
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent, No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the probabilities of choices. Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. Right. So are you saying there is some 'hidden math', like hidden variables, or t'Hooft's ultradeterminism, or Bohm's universal potential, that secretly determines which of the probabilities predicted by our QM is actually realized? Is it in principle possible for us to find this reality math or is it forever hidden? Brent This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally characterised as parallel universes coming into existence bu ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. How can a computation make a random choice? Jason But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the probabilities of choices. Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. Right. So are you saying there is some 'hidden math', like hidden variables, or t'Hooft's ultradeterminism, or Bohm's universal potential, that secretly determines which of the probabilities predicted by our QM is actually realized? Is it in principle possible for us to find this reality math or is it forever hidden? Brent This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard and Stephen, ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul doesn't exist! Edgar How do you know it doesn't exist? Jason On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ 2013/12/131205142218.htm#! Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul. http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods. you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one leaves aside the actual phrase many worlds, which is misleading). The equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose entanglable would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally characterised as parallel universes coming into existence bu ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1- view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time). You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6. So what about step 7? How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer? Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time). You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6. So what about step 7? How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer? Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, and many worlds nonsense. Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bi ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, That's funny, I've always lumped together presentist theories of time with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other times and other branches of the wave function. Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers. They have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience plainly showed them. -- Galileo and many worlds nonsense. Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light influences? Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious experience and appearances of physical realities. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bi ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, That's funny, I've always lumped together presentist theories of time with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other times and other branches of the wave function. Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers. They have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience plainly showed them. -- Galileo and many worlds nonsense. Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light influences? Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious experience and appearances of physical realities. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: blockquote style=mar ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result I am referring to Bell's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem explained well here: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the state of the other particle 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement and something is clearly wrong with it. You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many decades since its publication. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, It is only QM, without wave function collapse. Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds. Which is less ridiculous? and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it. If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality, determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility, linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain the operation of quantum computers. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. Not quite. It implies that the properties of particles can be multi-valued, and when such a particle interacts with another the
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result I am referring to Bell's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem explained well here: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the state of the other particle 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement and something is clearly wrong with it. You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many decades since its publication. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, It is only QM, without wave function collapse. Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds. Which is less ridiculous? and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it. If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality, determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility, linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain the operation of quantum computers. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the universe spawns an entire
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. And it was for a long time. But recent polls of physicist have found it be favored by a large fraction if not a plurality. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version. All those unobserved, i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions. Only decoherence resolves them (almost) to classically distinct worlds. And as Scott Aaronson points out they can't really be entirely distinct since they have to interfere with each other destructively to eliminate the cross-terms. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those numbers you mention are finite. And in any case both QM and GR assume continuum backgrounds that imply uncountable possible states. Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong. And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that only approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables. From an epistemic persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so one should not be surprised that it predicts probabilities.. But that does not make the Everett interpretation wrong. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the probability measure. For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50% alive or dead every time. I read the explanation on the basis of frequency but that did not make sense to me either. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. And it was for a long time. But recent polls of physicist have found it be favored by a large fraction if not a plurality. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version. All those unobserved, i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions. Only decoherence resolves them (almost) to classically distinct worlds. And as Scott Aaronson points out they can't really be entirely distinct since they have to interfere with each other destructively to eliminate the cross-terms. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those numbers you mention are finite. And in any case both QM and GR assume continuum backgrounds that imply uncountable possible states. Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong. And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that only approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables. From an epistemic persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so one should not be surprised that it predicts probabilities.. But that does not make the Everett interpretation wrong. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. Thanks Edgar, If the wave-function does not collapse then the superposition of states is preserved. This was the essence of Hugh Everett's theory (which is known today as many-worlds). Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. Thanks Edgar, If the wave-function does not collapse then the superposition of states is preserved. This was the essence of Hugh Everett's theory (which is known today as many-worlds). Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago /bl ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 23 Dec 2013, at 12:59, Edgar Owen wrote: Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I explained in more detail in a post yesterday That is where we might agree. It works with reality = arithmetical truth (when assuming comp). The immanent truth is just that proposition like the machine i stops on argument j are true independent of me, like 17 is prime. Bruno Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe not. I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was not. To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Of course the question is still ambiguous, it looks like how many 3-1-1 = 3-1 views, which is 7 billions. Can you explain why you ask? Does it change anything about the indeterminacy in the WM duplication. If yes explain, please. (I might answer late as the next days will be busy) Bruno Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I explained in more detail in a post yesterday Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe not. I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was not. To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Dear Edgar, Have you considered reflexivity based theories of consciousness, such as thus proposed by Greg Zuckermanhttp://www.cs.yale.edu/publications/techreports/tr1383.pdfand Louis H. Kauffmanhttp://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/hvf/papers/kauffman05eigenform.pdf? (Kauffman does not explicitly mention consciousness in his work, but the connection is obvious!) On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, John, and Bruno, One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems). The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I explained in more detail in a post yesterday Edgar On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe not. I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was not. To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. the question is still ambiguous, To repeat, if the question is ambiguous it is because it contains the words the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and those are NOT John Clark's words, they are Bruno Marchal's words!! Does this mean Bruno Marchal retracts the words because they are meaningless? John Clark thinks the words have meaning but apparently Bruno Marchal disagrees and maintains that Bruno Marchal was talking gibberish. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw Bruno give. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Vu Le 24 déc. 2013 19:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw Bruno give. After going to the store and bought your new eyes, you'll notice I already did. Quentin John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:55, meekerdb wrote: On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic. That's the point of the paper, that a truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic. I put truth in scare quotes because the predicate is really 1-Probability(x)--0. OK. It is not a *truth* predicate, only an approximation. In fact, for each sigma_i or pi_i sentence, Löbian theories or machine can define a corresponding sigma_i or pi_i truth, and even limiting approximations, which are far enough for practical purposes, but our concern here is not a practical one, but a conceptual one. And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical predicate for set theoretical truth. In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF +kappa can prove the consistency of ZF). Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions. Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel) Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and also Gödel, note). but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like []f (the consistency of inconsistency). But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the unprovable truths of arithmetic. If you allowed other models this set would be ill defined. Exactly, and that is why I don't allow them. This leads to a technical difficulty in AUDA here (alluded to in Torkel's book on the misuse of Gödel's incompleteness), which is solved by the use of the intensional nuances, but that would be lengthy and technical to describe here right now. I am not sure we are disagreeing on something here, but if it is the case, let me know, thanks. Best, Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? No. What I said is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view possible, it is felt as being unique So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact that is precisely why it is meaningful to speak of the first 7 billion integers, otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as would the very idea of integers. I can't agree more. The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view? (the 3-1 view = the view which uses the third person attribution of first-personhood to 3p countable entities). Bruno John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person experience. I know that, what I don't know is what number Bruno believes that number to be. Although I can't prove it I think the number is probably about 7 billion; if I am correct about that then Bruno's never ending chant you confuse the 1p with the 3p is not correct. But even after asking the question five times I still don't know if Bruno thinks it's 1 or 0 or 7 billion or infinity or something in between. The point here is that each entity can only experience their own. That's real nice but it is NOT the point and it plays no part in the question how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view? Either you're stalling because you don't want to answer the question or it's you and not me that confuses the 1P with the 3P because I quote you clear as day in the above first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view. So for the sixth time WHAT IS THE NUMBER? John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrot The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view? Either you're stalling because you don't want to answer the question or it's you and not me that confuses the 1P with the 3P because I quote you clear as day in the above first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view. So for the sixth time WHAT IS THE NUMBER? He did answer and did it correctly, only Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. Quentin John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? Buy some pair of eyes and come back here. Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying. Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant. Not redundant at all for Liar Clark. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. at least on a mthematical justification of theorems. Even Bruno's we see is suspect: we THINK we see, in adjusted ways as we can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about 'today'.. seeing is an 1-p experience. seeing is always thinking seeing. Even provably so with the comp assumption. About Bruno's remark on 'agnosticism' (also callable: ignorance) : I don't know (!) if a 'theory' (the partial one within our existent knowledge) is working indeed, or it just SEEMS working within the limited circumstances. Here, even without comp, I would say that a theory can only seem to be working. WE never know if our theories are true or not. We might know that they are refuted, as just one element of reality can demolish a theory, locally. Refuted? No one can include into a 'refutation' the totality, only the elements of a content of the present model. At some level, you are right, we might have dreamed the refutation!. But that level is impractical, and we will say that a theory is empirically refuted if it is contradicted by a sufficiently repeatable fact (a notion which ask in some faith in or waking state!). If comp predicts that the electron has a mass of one tun, then comp is refuted, (again, unless I wake up, and realize that electron does weight one tun), which needs we have to make small or big change in the assumption. Finally: I don't consider agnosticism a philosophy (oxymoron). The 'practical' results we achieve in our limited science-technology are commendable and useful, subject to Bruno's just be cautious to not draw conclusions. OK. (Scientific humility?) Yes. I may include a whole wide world beyond the mathematical computations into the term of 'compute'. That is semantic and requires a wider vocabulary than just ONE language. Comp offers an infinity of equivalent language. Your last remark would make sense if Church thesis is false, which I doubt, but is part of my assumption anyway. If you doubt Church thesis, it will be up to you to explain why. Church thesis is very solid for two main reason: 1) all attempts to define computable give rise to the same class of functions (be it by Babbage machine or quantum topological functors, etc.) 2) that class of computable functions is immune to the universality- destructive cantor diagonalization. Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? No. What I said is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view possible, it is felt as being unique and entire. Bruno If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic. And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical predicate for set theoretical truth. In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF +kappa can prove the consistency of ZF). Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions. Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel) Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and also Gödel, note). but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like []f (the consistency of inconsistency). Bruno Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? Are you dumb ? Are you really claiming that's what Bruno said ? really ? If you say yes, then you're proving once more what a liar you are. OK maybe I am dumb and a liar (although in this instance the 2 states would seem to be mutually exclusive) and maybe the answer is not 1, so then what is the answer? Give me a number! John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? No. What I said is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view possible, it is felt as being unique So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact that is precisely why it is meaningful to speak of the first 7 billion integers, otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as would the very idea of integers. The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi John, I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person experience. The point here is that each entity can only experience their own. The notion of a 3rd person experience can only consider the evidence that such exists, for example I cannot prove that you have a 1st person experience to myself or any one else. My own 1st person experience it incontrovertible to me and me alone. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? No. What I said is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view possible, it is felt as being unique So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact that is precisely why it is meaningful to speak of the first 7 billion integers, otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as would the very idea of integers. The question is ambiguous. If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view ! If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude) first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view exist on planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you can't. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic. That's the point of the paper, that a truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic. I put truth in scare quotes because the predicate is really 1-Probability(x)--0. And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical predicate for set theoretical truth. In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF+kappa can prove the consistency of ZF). Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions. Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel) Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and also Gödel, note). but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like []f (the consistency of inconsistency). But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the unprovable truths of arithmetic. If you allowed other models this set would be ill defined. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Brent, Is there a reason why we only consider the 'standard models to apply when we are considering foundation theory (or whatever you might denote what we are studying)? Have you ever looked at the Tennenbaum theoremhttps://www.google.com/search?q=Tennebaum+theoremoq=Tennebaum+theoremaqs=chrome..69i57sourceid=chromeespv=210es_sm=93ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93espv=210q=Tennenbaum+theoremspell=1 and wondered if it could be weakened to allow for computations that are outside of the countable recursive functions? I suspect that the standard model (of arithmetic) is a type of invariant under a strong restricted group of transformations, I do not have the proper language to explain this further at this time. :_( There is more ... Just because we can prove that N x N -N mapping can represent all possible computations we forget that the proof assumes that the quantity of resources and the number of computational steps is irrelevant. As a researcher of computer science and physics, why is the tractability of a computation given a quantity of resources not relevant in considerations of what, say, the UD* can accomplish? I believe that the quest of a universal rule or measure that determines Everything is already excluded as a possibility; have we not learned that a measure zero set is? Why not instead look at how computations can interact with each other, how they might evolve, how entropy may be involved, what does it mean for truths to be finitely accessible and infinite truths to be inaccessible, etc. We look like monkeys chasing the weasel 'round the mulberry tree... On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic. That's the point of the paper, that a truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic. I put truth in scare quotes because the predicate is really 1-Probability(x)--0. And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical predicate for set theoretical truth. In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF+kappa can prove the consistency of ZF). Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions. Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel) Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and also Gödel, note). but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like []f (the consistency of inconsistency). But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the unprovable truths of arithmetic. If you allowed other models this set would be ill defined. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform instead. John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe not. I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was not. To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 December 2013 13:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Jason, I think it was you that wrote (to me): I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by someone somewhere. I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, exactly? If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? What is it that makes it true? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that theorem's possible truth value? The maths that describes the behaviour of physical systems must be true whether anyone knows about it or not, so long as those physical systems continue to operate in the same manner. For example the inverse square law was true for billions of years before life evolved on Earth, and for billions more before Newton discovered it, as can be shown by observing distant galaxies. The inverse square law is true in Platonia. In the real world it's just a very good approximation. Absolutely. I was just using that as a simple example, because we don't (yet) have a theory of quantum gravity that might be considered a candidate for a final theory. (If I'd written that 150 years ago it would have been treated as an accurate example, modulo the undiscovered planet inside Mercury's orbit). Still, I'm glad you thnik that it's true in Platonia, which is the point I was making. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer Yes, in fact it may have already happened. That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. I'm pretty confident that such a program exists within mathematics, but I am far less confident that a computer to run it on also exists at that same level of reality; I'm not saying it doesn't, maybe it does, but I don't know it for a fact. With today's emphasis on software sometimes we forget that a program is useless without hardware to run it on. You agree that the 8th Fibonacci number is 21, and that the 9th is 34, right? And that the Nth Fibonacci number has some value F_n is some mathematical fact, which is not dependent on John Clark or Jason Resch, right? If so, then the relation Fib(n) + Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2) is a recursive function whose values exist as pure consequence of arithmetical truth. But there are other recursive functions. Some define John Conway's Game of Life. Some of these Game of Life instances contain Turing machines, and a rarer few contain Turing machines executing the universal dovetailer. It is no less of a mathematical fact that the Nth number defined by this recursive Game of Life function has some value G_n, than it is that the Nth Fibonacci number has some value F_n. But now consider a Game of Life progression which contains evolved, and self-aware substructures. From their view they exist in a real world. If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are conscious. Otherwise, your theory on consciousness is supposing some kind of magic potential for consciousness which is found only in strings, electrons, carbon atoms, or something along those lines. If it is a true statement that the evolution of some recursive function in arithmetic contains patterns that behave and act as if they are conscious, what reason is there to doubt that they are conscious? True, there is no physical computer running the program to show us their evolution, but using a computer to attempt to factor a prime number and see it fail is not what makes a number prime. These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them via simulation on physical computers. For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. For that you don't need to bring in Everett or Quantum Mechanics or virtual worlds or dovetailing or computers, all you need are the 19'th century ideas of Ludwig Boltzmann. There are a gargantuan number of ways the atoms in my 200 pound body could be organized, but there are not a infinite number, therefore if the universe is spatially infinite 10^1000 light years away (give or take a few hundred thousand million billion trillion) there can be no doubt that John Clark is typing a post to the Everything list about Boltzmann's idea. You need to assume much more to get to Boltzmann's idea: a whole physical universes, quantum vacuum, atoms, etc. For the UDA, you need only assume the ontology of the natural numbers. This is an implicit assumption in nearly all scientific theories, and is therefore a rather modest proposal. It is also much simpler to justify existence through seeing the necessity of mathematical truths such as 2+2=4, and extrapolating from those simpler truths to more complex ones, such as the value of Chaitin's constant (which has a value dependent on the executions of all possible programs). Jason Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. Right,
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Jason, That is a beautifully clear explanation of how assuming comp leads to the existence of self aware beings within arithmetic realism. You have shown that philosophical debate can also be poetry! :-) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of observable matter needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly, given that the appearance of matter is only the result of the FPI on all computations (an infinite object). That seems to prove to much. I agree. Although QM says you can't clone an unknown state, you can exactly reproduce a state; and elementary particles are elementary because they are indistinguishable. Your reasoning above seems to imply that every bit of matter will be unique, an infinite set of relations. Yes, a priori the comp non-cloning is too much big. In fact it is a version of the white rabbit problem, but then we know that self- reference will put some constraints on this. So comp is not (yet?) refuted. AUDA is too young to decide this, but we can formulate the problem (the cloning the nesting of the boxes and diamond is very huge, and some optimization of the modal logic provability have to be done). Bruno Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, I think it was you that wrote (to me): I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by someone somewhere. Yes, I wrote that. I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, exactly? It seems to get cause and effect completely backwards. 7 isn't prime because I wrote some demonstration on paper that it has no factors besides 1 and 7, rather, I wrote some demonstration on paper that it has no factors besides 1 and 7 because the truth of the matter is that 1 and 7 are its only factors. If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. Let's say it is the question of whether or not some program will ever terminate. Certainly, all programs either terminate or they don't. There is some truth value concerning whether it does or does not, despite that the answer might be unknown to us. What is it that makes it true? You could say God. Or that it just is, and always has been. What makes it possible for this universe to exist? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that theorem's possible truth value? Something not knowable by us, (as are a answers to a lot lot of questions). Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer Yes, in fact it may have already happened. That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. I'm pretty confident that such a program exists within mathematics, but I am far less confident that a computer to run it on also exists at that same level of reality; I'm not saying it doesn't, maybe it does, but I don't know it for a fact. With today's emphasis on software sometimes we forget that a program is useless without hardware to run it on. But the hardware/software distinction might be a relative indexical. If you got the step 8 (or even step 7) this should easily be understood (or conceived). For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. For that you don't need to bring in Everett or Quantum Mechanics or virtual worlds or dovetailing or computers, all you need are the 19'th century ideas of Ludwig Boltzmann. There are a gargantuan number of ways the atoms in my 200 pound body could be organized, but there are not a infinite number, therefore if the universe is spatially infinite 10^1000 light years away (give or take a few hundred thousand million billion trillion) there can be no doubt that John Clark is typing a post to the Everything list about Boltzmann's idea. Boltzman still use physicalism, and Boltzman brain cannot clealry grow infinitely in some stable way, unlike the arithmetical UD, which exists in the same sense that the distribution of primes exists in arithmetic; Bruno John K Clark Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, there are several physical concepts that provide support for the UD being a valid TOE: Quantum uncertainty Non clonability of matter Determinism in physical laws Information as a fundamental physical quantity (I think there is something I am forgetting, but Bruno can fill in the gaps) This is the grand conclusion you have been missing for all these years. I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman. Nor is it obvious to John the non-caveman. Nice. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear LizR, Is math in our heads or is it somehow out there. If it is out there how does it connect to what is in our heads? Mathematicians simulate other objects and realities using their heads, computers, or paper, etc. to learn and discover their properties. This is no different than some alien who lives in a different universe, simulating the laws of our own universes, and learning about galaxies, red-shift, black holes, etc. These things might have no correlation to anything in the universe of the alien, but you might rightfully ask where does the information about black holes and red-shift come from?, the answer in both cases is the same: simulation of other mathematical structures. Jason If it is all in our heads, what does that say about Arithmetic Realism? I am trying to get back to some basic concepts... On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Jason, I think it was you that wrote (to me): I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by someone somewhere. I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, exactly? If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? What is it that makes it true? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that theorem's possible truth value? The maths that describes the behaviour of physical systems must be true whether anyone knows about it or not, so long as those physical systems continue to operate in the same manner. For example the inverse square law was true for billions of years before life evolved on Earth, and for billions more before Newton discovered it, as can be shown by observing distant galaxies. It also seems unlikely that simple arithmetic didn't work until Ug the caveman (or woman) discovered it. The big bang seems to have done nucleosynthesis by adding particles together quite happily when presumably there was no one around to know about it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Could it be that the physical world that is associated with an observer (using your definition of an observer) is the truth of that observer? I apologize for the weirdness of this question, but consider that nothing is more true than the 1st person experience that an observer has. Truth enter in the picture in two ways: 1) by the inetnsional nuance when we add the p, like in the first and second application of Theaetetus: Bp === Bp p Bp Dt Bp Dt p and 2) By the splitting between G and G* inherited by such variants, which is a spliiting between true about the machine and what the machine can prove. An observer could doubt that what it experiences is real and even have a sophisticated argument for how it could not possibly be real, but nonetheless the illusion of a physical world persist... Yes, that is captured by the Theatetus p nuance. One property of Truth (at least the Platonic notion of truth) is that it is eternal and immutable. OK. I would say that it is not even temporal. There is another property that can be teased out! There is no contingency in that 2 + 2 = 4 and that 17 is prime. OK. Could it be that this 'non-contingency' is the result of the fact that at least a countable infinity of observers (numbers!) can verify to themselves that they are numbers (they cannot know which number they are) and thus are members of the set of numbers. This leads me to guess that maybe a physical world is a finite truth of sorts in the way that a arithmetic fact is an infinite truth. I don't see this. Normally the physical reality inherits the computer science infinities. What would happen if we considered your UD idea on finite sets of numbers that are very large but still finite? ? The UD generates and execute programs, which are all finite, by definition, on all data, which are 3p-finite, but 1p-infinite. Would we still have the permanence and non-contingency of truth for such sets? ? Bruno I like to see you speculating out loud so that I can add my own speculation. It could all be nonsense... :-) On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:46, Jason Resch wrote: 8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the executions of all programs exist within the relations between large numbers. That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. Yes, even in arithmetic, and under different important forms. Its many descriptions exist, and the computation are truly emulated in the truth referred by the theorems concerning those description. That is a point which met some difficulties for non-logician, as it is impossible to ever point a computation, without mentioning a description of it. The computation itself is captured by the truth of certain arithmetical statements, not by the existence of a description of those computations. The nuance is subtle, because we infer the existence of the computation by looking at the existence of some description of them, and to show that this is equivalent is by no means a trivial affair, linking the syntax of the theory and its intended meaning (and that is why we need AR). There is a need to really study how simple theories (like RA) can represent in some strong sense the partial recursive function. It is well done in Boolos and Jeffrey, or in Epstein Carnielli. The whole difficulty of step 8 is in this paragraph. Those who believe that a filmed boolean graph can be thinking commit a confusion between use and mention (like I have just described). For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. OK. Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, there
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. What specifically? The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there. I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. You need not accept or believe in these assumptions for them to be useful to progress. Bruno shows only that if P and Q are true, it implies R. We can look at R and see if it agrees with what we see, and use it as evidence for or against (P Q). Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' *computability *may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. I don't think agnosticism or doubt should inhibit argumentation. You can, for instance, show how given certain assumptions (without believing they are true), might they lead to consequences that are either absurd or generally accepted. Of course, whether some idea is considered absurd or not might be matter of someone's beliefs. Jason On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so much trouble understanding the point of the third step. I will summarize them for you here: 1: Teleportation is survivable 2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is imperceptible to the person teleported 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. If duplicate to the intended destination, and then a year later duplicated to the unintended destination, subjectively there is still a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the duplication with delay. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: How many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? The question is ambiguous. I provided all the information needed to be crystal clear and unambiguous. In the 3p view, and the answer stays the same 7 billions (+ animals ...). That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. it's the sort of indeterminacy caused by a simple lack of information and first discovered by Og the caveman; Do you think Og was aware of the possibility of self-duplication? No but the self duplicating machine in your thought experiment adds nothing to our understanding of indeterminacy or of anything else, it's just another useless wheel within a wheel. Not at all. It proves (for the first time) the necessity of an indeterminacy, brought by the comp 3p *determinacy*. But no problem if you disagree, as that point is not in the topic. Now that you do agree with the point of step 3, what is your take on step 4? Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will be at the intended destination. Yes, but the question is asked before the duplication. Then why did it include the words following duplication in the above? You did not quote me. Then, I understand the quote as alluding to the confirmation of the prediction done before. If you say 100% for this city, the guy in the other city will understand that he was mistaken, For a logician you sure aren't very logical. If today I predict that tomorrow a green object will be found in Washington and tomorrow you show me a red stop sign that you found in Washington does that provide enough information to prove that my prediction of yesterday was wrong? No. But that's a different experience. if you predict now that you will see Washington after pushing on the button and opening the door, and that after pushing the button and opening the door you (the one in front of me to who I ask the question in Moscow) see Moscow, that will refute (from his 1p, as the question conerns the 1p) his prediction. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself in that alternate location. JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If someone creates a copy of Jason Resch somewhere, there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be in that alternate location. After the duplication. Not before Obviously after the duplication!! Before the duplication or teleportation nothing unusual has happened yet so there is a 0% chance that Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be in a alternate location. So before I bought the quantum lottery ticket, there is 100% choice that I will win? Correct from the 3p view: I do win in some universe. Incorrect from the QM statistics: I do lose in most universes. So here, you are oscillating between a confusion between before/after doing the duplication and the 1p/3p confusion. The fact that you have to make a confusion at all cost, illustrate well the inconsistencies you need to refute step 3. bruno John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can you list the implicit assumptions? I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some explanatory sweat to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' computability may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. Church thesis makes computability into an miraculous mathematical definition of an otherwise epistemic notion. yes, there is a sort of miracle there. Comp assumes it, although mathematically we can eliminate it. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). ? It is the same arithmetic. I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. Agnosticism invites to theorizing, and just be cautious to not draw conclusion when a theory is working (only when it is refuted). If not, agnosticism become another don't ask philosophy. Bruno John M On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play 'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so much trouble understanding the point of the third step. I will summarize them for you here: 1: Teleportation is survivable 2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is imperceptible to the person teleported 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. If duplicate to the intended destination, and then a year later duplicated to the unintended destination, subjectively there is still a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the duplication with delay. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself in that alternate location. 6. If a virtual copy of you is instantiated in a computer somewhere, then as in step 5, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:43, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. What specifically? The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there. Yes. Although, if you indulge the nitpicking, i would say that aithmetical realism is part of comp (even part of Church thesis). Computationalism needs the notion of computation, which needs the notion of computational steps, which needs arithmetical realism (to say, for example, that a running machine stop or does not stop. I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some explanatory sweat to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. You need not accept or believe in these assumptions for them to be useful to progress. Bruno shows only that if P and Q are true, it implies R. We can look at R and see if it agrees with what we see, and use it as evidence for or against (P Q). Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' computability may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. I don't think agnosticism or doubt should inhibit argumentation. I agree and said so. John Mikes often talk like if we were pretending that something is true, which no (serious) scientists ever do. We just argue *in* the frame of some theories. As scientists we doubt all theories. You can, for instance, show how given certain assumptions (without believing they are true), might they lead to consequences that are either absurd or generally accepted. Of course, whether some idea is considered absurd or not might be matter of someone's beliefs. Yes. We can mention our personal belief ... at the pause café. We better do that when people get the scientific (sharable) point, so as not mixing what is proved to everybody, and the degree of plausibility of our assumptions. Bruno Jason On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play 'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few steps) you would see where things
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind us of ourselves, then you are denying that puppets exist. Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are conscious. By that reasoning, If I see a painting of an artist painting themselves in a mirror, then I must assume that the figure the canvas is the painter of the painting. These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them via simulation on physical computers. But arithmetic truths may not exist independently of *all* verification. Without the possibility of sensory experience in which arithmetical truths are presented directly, there is no reason to suppose any sort of existence at all. The fact of arithmetic truth makes sensory experience no more likely or plausible than a universe lacking any arithmetic at all, so we must conclude that aesthetic presence is a further fact about the world. From all indications, this fact of experience cannot be accessed theoretically in any way, and can actually be productively modeled as 'that which is the exact opposite of theory' (information, math, representation). Where arithmetic truths are generic and universal, aesthetic presence is proprietary and uniquely local. Aesthetic presentations are concrete rather than abstract, participatory rather than aloof and indirect. Thanks, Craig ... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - at least on a mthematical justification of theorems. Even Bruno's we see is suspect: we *THINK* we see, in adjusted ways as we can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about 'today'.. About Bruno's remark on 'agnosticism' (also callable: ignorance) : I don't know (!) if a 'theory' (the partial one *within* our existent knowledge) is working indeed, or it just SEEMS working within the limited circumstances. Refuted? No one can include into a 'refutation' the totality, only the elements of a content of the present model. Finally: I don't consider agnosticism a philosophy (oxymoron). The 'practical' results we achieve in our limited science-technology are commendable and useful, subject to Bruno's just be cautious to not draw conclusions. (Scientific humility?) I may include a whole wide world beyond the mathematical computations into the term of 'compute'. That is semantic and requires a wider vocabulary than just ONE language. John M On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can you list the implicit assumptions? I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' *computability *may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. Church thesis makes computability into an miraculous mathematical definition of an otherwise epistemic notion. yes, there is a sort of miracle there. Comp assumes it, although mathematically we can eliminate it. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). ? It is the same arithmetic. I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. Agnosticism invites to theorizing, and just be cautious to not draw conclusion when a theory is working (only when it is refuted). If not, agnosticism become another don't ask philosophy. Bruno John M On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind us of ourselves, then you are denying that puppets exist. They don't just remind us of ourselves, they would be like us in every way. They have working brains; hopes, fears, desires. They are not puppets because they are autonomous and self-driven. They evolved to use the mathematical relations to drive themselves just as our biology and mentality evolved to use the physical laws. From their point of view, those mathematical relations they are a part of constitute their physical laws. Note: from our point of view, we can't rule out that we ourselves are also driven by some particular mathematical relation(s). Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are conscious. By that reasoning, If I see a painting of an artist painting themselves in a mirror, then I must assume that the figure the canvas is the painter of the painting. It's what they do, not what they look like to us. Paint on a canvas behaves very different from an artist. If you could examine some particular mathematical function, you might find patterns within it that behave just like a painter making a painting. They are the same in the sense that the computation performed by the evolving function is at some level the same as the computation performed by some painter you know from Earth. And by computationalism (which I know you reject) we would accept the two are equivalently conscious. These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them via simulation on physical computers. But arithmetic truths may not exist independently of *all* verification. Without the possibility of sensory experience in which arithmetical truths are presented directly, there is no reason to suppose any sort of existence at all. The fact of arithmetic truth makes sensory experience no more likely or plausible than a universe lacking any arithmetic at all, so we must conclude that aesthetic presence is a further fact about the world. If we assume sensory experience only, then we can't explain mathematical truth. If we assume mathematical truth, then we can explain mathematical truth and quite possibly, sensory experience. It's two (explanations) for one (assumption). From all indications, this fact of experience cannot be accessed theoretically in any way, and can actually be productively modeled as 'that which is the exact opposite of theory' (information, math, representation). Where arithmetic truths are generic and universal, aesthetic presence is proprietary and uniquely local. What about a given particular mathematical function? From the inside it could appear proprietary and local. Aesthetic presentations are concrete rather than abstract, participatory rather than aloof and indirect. I would say the difference between concrete and abstract is only a matter of perspective. Jason -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise, if a change in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about 10^44 times a second; and a consciousness that never changes is not a consciousness. Do you see consciousness as a thing or as a process? A process. The real question is about our minds, and despite what some like Roger Penrose say I think our minds are probably entirely classical. Why? If minds are classical then they are easy to copy, in principle. Why then are there not lots of John Clarks running around? Because the difference between in principle and in practice can be huge. There is no scientific or philosophical reason there are not lots of John Clarks running around , it's purely technological; in less than a hundred years, probably less than 50, things will be very different . John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? Are you dumb ? Are you really claiming that's what Bruno said ? really ? If you say yes, then you're proving once more what a liar you are. Quentin John K Clark -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 22 December 2013 07:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? ROTFLMAO! OK not *quite* literally, but almost. Surely you're joking, Mr Clark! -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 December 2013 11:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise! Immaterial indeed :-) On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Brent -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Brent, I don't like these types of truth predicates since they are Platonic in their assumptions, as if statements do not even involve or relate to finite entities like ourselves or, more relevant to my own work, real world computers. Consider a paper by Lou Kauffman that considers a local notion of truth values that can oscillate: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/TimeParadox.pdf On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.