My one page model and info storage
To clarify my model there is no type of information storage step supporting the transitions between successive isomorphic links nor can there be to adhere to the postulate. None of the systems components are in any way stable so there are no equilibriums of any sort. One could call the system "frizzy fuzzy" such that the "no information" content basis is the sustained condition. This translates into the idea that a group of sequential "Somethings" all have some degree of overlapping partial manifestation. [The motion picture of viewing a very large dense flock of butterflies [the "Somethings" as the "frizz"] in a heavy fog [the "Nothing" as the "fuzz"] from a point deep inside the flock comes to mind.] Thus an evolving universe can have some non zero fraction of a trajectory always available if its rules of succession are random enough to always find acceptable links in the random "frizzy fuzz". Hal
Re: Who is the enemy?
George Levy wrote: > > Wonderful post Bruno! I agree with you 100%. > Oops! I really mean I am 100% sure I do not disagree with you and do not agree with you. George :-) Bruno wrote: >I consider atheism as a form of positive religious belief. >If D represents the proposition "God exists" (let us say), then > -the believer says []D (I believe in God) > -the atheist says []-D (I believe in the inexistence of God) > -the agnostic says -[]D and -[]-D (I don't believe in God and I don't believe in the inexistence of God) >The agnostic is either indifferent or is awaiting for more information. >I just say this because I consider real atheist as very religious >people, and, what is worth is that most of the time they want us to >believe they have no religion. >Only the agnostic can be said not having still made its religion (yet). >The problem arises because the modalities []-x and -[]x are confused >in most natural language.
Re: Who is the enemy?
>From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Jacques Mallah wrote: > >(I'm currently in North Dakota, but have lived in NYC most of my life. I >did not know anyone who was in the WTC.) > >I told you my relief, but I begin to doubt ! What do you mean by that? > >Recently, of course, I have been more concerned with the destruction > >caused in NYC by the advocates of suicide and believers in immortality. > >I understand your concern with NYC. I share with you the concern >of those terrible and crual 11 sept. events. > >Now a pecularity of this war consists in figuring out who >is the enemy, exactly. > >It looks like you have solved that problem too. The enemy are the >believers in immortality, the religious people !?! I did mention that they were also "advocates of suicide". >I am fearing amalgamations, like the amalgamations between Muslims and >terrorists (to name one which has been done by some). But you are the >champion: the enemy are all religious people. The war between atheism >and religion !?! > >Perhaps I should tell you what are, according to G*, the canonical >"enemies" of the sound universal machine. Bruno, you have an amazing ability to misunderstand what I say. I used to think that the problem was that many of the posts on this list concern arcane philosophical and technical points, so that misunderstanding was understandable. By now I know better. I could say "Coke is better than Pepsi", and you would interpret that to mean that I don't know they are both colas. Further, you would believe that the only way to illustrate the relationship between the two drinks is by analogy to G and G*. >The sound machine is maximaly humble, she is agnostic on both >her own consistency and her own inconsistency. Does that imply it is agnostic on any question? One of these days, I'll have to check out what kind of analogy you are making between Godel's theorem and belief systems. Right now I doubt there's much to it. A couple more points. When I say "X is true" you can assume I mean "I believe X is very likely to be true, so my Bayesian probability of (not X) is so low it is best to neglect it." If I say for example "This is a chair" that is what I mean. Also, if humans have properties that are not shared by your "consistent machine" model, then it is not the humans' fault. It is not their job to describe your model. It means your model is faulty. >The universal sound machine is forever undecided about any of its possible >ultimate worldview and, by doubting, never imposes its religion or >worldview on different machines. Why not? Even if I'm not sure of X, I might still want you to believe X. Or, equivalently, I might want your Bayesian probability for X to be high even if mine is not. (Not that I'm that sort though, but some people are.) >Today I guess we have still the choice between a war between >moderates and fanatics and a war between fanatics and fanatics. It's going to be a war between ordinary people vs. evil. Personally I am not too concerned right now with the philosophical differences among the ordinary people, be they religious or intelligent. This will be serious, I fear. >In the second case we loose the war at the start, isn't it? >Do you agree with this last statement? Or are you really, Mister the >Devil's Advocate, a fanatical atheist? I'm an atheist, and have no doubts of any significance about it. I do believe that other people should be atheists too, and that on the whole religion is an evil. Of the major religions I would say that Islam and Christianity are the worst, but the main factor is how seriously the believers take it and how radical they are in interpretation. But again, for now I am putting disagreements among non-evil people on the back burner. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/ _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: Immortality
--- Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m. > > > > Sequential, temporal, > > in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my > view. > > I think some of the people here would argue that you *can't* > transcend the physical (or possibly the computational). I appreciate > that that sounds very in-the-box, but if you look at the sort of > thing physicists (who *tend* to be materialists - not always) have > come up with in last 20-30 years, I'd say there has definitely been > *some* jumping out of the box... including quite a lot by David > Deutsch. > > > In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has > taught me > > is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard > > preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in > > truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find > answers to > > such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is > > happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an > almost > > certainly flawed initial assumption about existence. > > I agree. Every breakthrough in human thought has been at the expense > of preconceived notions. Are you saying we *should* "adopt a > realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric > question as consciousness" ? (If so I think a lot of the > people here would agree - the approach using computationalism is VERY > abstract). > > However - what I'm most interested to know is, what is the "almost > certainly flawed initial assumption about existence" ? > > Charles > That time is the fundamental basis for expression or state change: I've gone at length about my theories of timeless consciousness. if you are interested, I can repost. Dimention: that a body must be the locus of computation, or the place that consciousness resides, That the body is not simply a shape for an N-dimentional object that intersects with 4-space, That an observer is seperate from what he observes, cause-and-efect: that fliping a lightswitch causes the light to come on.., (sure, it looks that way, but are our observations flawed by by nature of being immersed in the system observed?) states of consciousness: for one, through my investigations I have found that a person dreams constantly, and typically can only recall such events after having been asleep. There was a comment about discounting observations that cannot be duplicated in a common forum: ie., what one dreams cannot be proved or theorized upon because it cannot be analyized in the physical... "Since consciousness is an undefined quagmire in which everybody includes whatever one's digestive tract dictates, I deny the use of such in serious discussions. We can talk about the single concepts of ideation which may or may not be included into one's private "consciousness" concept. Neither am I impressed by the marvels of the "psychology of the machine", especially if it may include mystical fantasies (OOOPS: experiences). Somewhere I seek a line between things to be taken seriously and the fantasy-fables. So, not wanting to open the door to the Brothers Grimm or to Andersen, "I rest my case". Sorry, rwas, about your experiences." ...John Mikes At least that is my take on this opinion. I'd have to say that this apears to be a defense of a personal religion than the defense of an investigative method that discounts data for which has direct bearing on the subject investigated. I'm appauled that one could allow himself to attempt to develop a serious theory of consciouness while aparently having no respect for the only source of information and data on the phenomenon, which is the people that claim to posses it. There are documented cases of mystics altering their physiology through concentration and providing outstanding exceptions to conclusions of those bodily functions previously ruled to be impossible to manipulate consciously. If we claim to be lovers of truth by claiming to be scientists, we should readily embrace truth and all roads to it and cast away all that would seperate us from it. Robert W. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
