Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > So, why do

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC,

Re: MODAL Last exercise

On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote: On 5 March 2014 20:59, Bruno Marchal wrote: You have to show two things: 1) R is transitive -> (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A and 2) (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A-> R is transitive Let us look at "1)". To show that "R is transitive -> (W,R) r

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 02 Mar 2014, at

Re: MODAL Last exercise

On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:31, LizR wrote: Let's take 3 worlds A B C making a minimal transitive multiverse. ARB and BRC implies ARC. So if we assume ARB and BRC we also get ARC Right. (if we don't assume this we don't have a multiverse or at least not one we can say anything about. This,

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

This is certainly one subject on which I totally agree with you, Chris. And if we do hit the wall, we'll be back in the Middle Ages - for good this time, or at least until some extinction level event finishes us off - something that would have been trivial to avoid if we'd grown up and become a st

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 06 Mar 2014, at 00:17, John Mikes wrote: Ghibsa and honored discussioneers: you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long as you cannot identify it. Attribute of "a 1st person"? that would leave out lots of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st person.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 06 Mar 2014, at 01:52, chris peck wrote: Hi Jason/Gabriel Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, to think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common. I do maintain

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 06 Mar 2014, at 02:51, chris peck wrote: Hi Bruno >> The question is: can you refute this. To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone. Though perhaps you have an ideological agenda Which one would that be. Cou

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

I don't know anything about obligatory ram ventilators, but I do like fluffy kittens. On 6 March 2014 17:20, wrote: > > On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > >> On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need t

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

Ghibbsa and Bruno, Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted assumptions and conclusions about its application to the rea

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: > > Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you > what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're > looking at cases where

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wr

Re: Block Universes

Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was? Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this except in response to your own Troll obsession.) Anyway let's p

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in t

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:17 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating This is certainly one subject on which I total

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Liz, > > Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to > acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing > I was? > > Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included > th

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will certain

Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it. What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation. Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close tho

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame > synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY > FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we > know their

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME > VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it. > > What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation. > Every f

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Chris, not to be disagreeable, but the tech either works or it does not, is either clean or its not, is abundant or it isn't, is affordable or it ain't. We need it all to work in a newtonian sense, or its useless. Fuel efficiency has been promoted by greens, as an ideological thing. It has it

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed occur

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM, wrote: > you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date > That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived, better educated or richer than it is today so global warming seems to have caused little harm and may even have

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: > they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism, > despite there never having been such a thing > Actually there has been, the black-market. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (b) think computation is intrinsically conscious But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being define

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > >>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, > but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity > like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody > invented a

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. Best, Bruno Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics? It is OK, to ask, but it is delicate. But it is, partiall

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, LizR wrote: > If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and > tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well? > No, conserving angular momentum isn't just a good idea, it's the law; and yet car engines and tidal power generators s

Re: Block Universes

On 3/6/2014 9:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen > wrote: Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was?

Re: Block Universes

On 7 March 2014 06:01, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to >> acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing >> I was? >> > I'm ignoring gravita

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:48 AM Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: > they seem to mostly have a religious belief

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:55 AM Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > >>>I am certainly in favor of e

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 7 March 2014 07:48, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: > > > they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism, >> despite there never having been such a thing >> > > Actually there has been, the black-market. > Ooh yes, good point - just as t

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: "spudboy...@aol.com" Chris, not to be disagreeable, but the tech either works or it does not, is either clean or its not, is abundant or it isn't, is affordable or it ain't. We need it all to work in a newtonian sense, or its useless. Fuel efficie

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 7 March 2014 09:00, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, LizR wrote: > > > If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and >> tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well? >> > > No, conserving angular momentum isn't just a good idea, it's the

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 7 March 2014 09:14, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > -- > *From:* John Clark > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:48 AM > > *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:26 PM, wrote: > > >>> Why do we need to sleep? >>> >> >> >> Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded >> out individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering >> around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

> > > >On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: > > > >> they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism, >> despite there never having been such a thing >> > >Actually there has been, the black-market. > > >Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

"Informatique théorique et philosophie de l'esprit" Information Theory of Spirits (mistranslation intended) My Aristotelian take: >From Leibniz Discourse, http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/leibniz%20-%20discourse%20on%20metaphysics.htm XXXV: The excellence of spirits; that God consi

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Ghibbsa and Bruno, > > Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't > really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error > discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote: My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the rela

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

Russell, Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that single person first approved it and then rejected it when he had some dispute with Bruno? That sounds quite strange to me. Normally it would be a whole

Re: Block Universes

Just realized in retrospect that it was a very confusing choice of terminology to use "reference frame" to refer to the frame that's used to label other frame's relative velocities--I was thinking of the idea that other frame's velocities are labeled "in reference" to this one choice of frame, but

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be > >willing to answer ). Does Russell > >(a) agree with you completely > > Only Russell can answer th

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

Hi Bruno >>Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone. pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction of ev

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:06:40PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Russell, > > Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of > whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? I doubt X had anything to do with the award of the prize, since it was for a PhD thesis s

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:05:42PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno > >started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in > >itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be willing to answer ). Does Russell (a) agree with you completely Onl

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a > >>computer cannot think, a computation cannot think

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

-- 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@googlegrou

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: "spudboy...@aol.com" >>Chris, at some point we must ask basic questions, such as, do the toilets >>flush, and do the lights come on? We are not, I believe, speaking here about >>Bruno's UDA, versus Tegmark's MUH, but how well our civilizations flou

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

Hi Bruno >> ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You >> must say at which step rigor is lacking. I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to Liz. Don't worry about it. >> You make vague negative proposition containing precise

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 3/6/2014 6:12 PM, chris peck wrote: The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is the probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes the idea that there will be only one unique successor of H. The only question that is really fitting in the

Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

Congratulations Bruno, and thank you Russell and Kim! I am anxious to get my hands on the hard copy. Jason On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno > Marchal's "The Amoeba's Secret" is now av

Vehiculus automobilius

If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like ho

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:52 PM, chris peck wrote: > Hi Jason/Gabriel > > Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a > mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, > to think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common. > > I do

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI? Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness? Brent -- You received this message because you are

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM, mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>> wrote: > you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived, better educated or richer than it is to

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? > Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI? > > > Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true ran

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:39 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote: O

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 3/6/2014 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Do you not agree that FPI can generate apparent randomness? If so then at least some appearance of true randomness is due to FPI. That doesn't follow (at least not if FPI means what Bruno's been selling). Brent -- You received this message because you

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (b) think computation is intrinsically conscious But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a