Re: Belief in Big Bang?
On 1/24/2012 8:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Brent, On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises that I have some doubts about. Such as? Let us start with the heavily camouflaged idea that we can get something, a universe!, out of Nothing. It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A Universe From Nothing". That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations of the total energy of the universe. Theories of the origin of the universe have been developed by Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Of course the other view is that there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default. 2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until we have a better explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to explain. We have never actually detected it. What we have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have light that appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of questions is: At what point are we going to keep adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if there is something fundamentally wrong with it? I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the concordance theory in the literature. It includes the hot Big Bang, inflation, and vacuum energy. The reason Dark Energy (so called in parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological constant. It didn't have to be amended; just accept that a parameter wasn't exactly zero. A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of his life". Only because it caused him to miss predicting the expansion of the universe - or maybe you don't believe the universe is expanding. The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more "something from nothing" nonsense. But you can't add any others that are simpler than the curvature terms, which are second order, except the constant CC term. It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? There is no ultimate arbiter. What is thought to exist is model dependent and it changes as theories change to explain new data. WOW! We been informed that we can now make things pop in and out of existence merely by shifting our belief systems. Who might have imagined such a wondrous possibility! Umm, NO. Existence is not subject to our perceptions, theories of whatever. Read more carefully. I wrote "What is *thought* to exist..."; which is obviously true. We thought atoms existed long before they could be imaged. We think quarks exist based on a theory that says they can't be observed. Brent "The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." --- Quentin Smith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Belief in Big Bang?
Hi Brent, On 1/24/2012 9:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi John, 1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises that I have some doubts about. Such as? Let us start with the heavily camouflaged idea that we can get something, a universe!, out of Nothing. 2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until we have a better explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to explain. We have never actually detected it. What we have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have light that appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of questions is: At what point are we going to keep adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if there is something fundamentally wrong with it? I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the concordance theory in the literature. It includes the hot Big Bang, inflation, and vacuum energy. The reason Dark Energy (so called in parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological constant. It didn't have to be amended; just accept that a parameter wasn't exactly zero. A "constant" that Einstein himself called the "greatest mistake of his life". The problem is that one can add an arbitrary number of such scalar field terms to one's field equations. Frankly IMHO, it is more "something from nothing" nonsense. It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? There is no ultimate arbiter. What is thought to exist is model dependent and it changes as theories change to explain new data. WOW! We been informed that we can now make things pop in and out of existence merely by shifting our belief systems. Who might have imagined such a wondrous possibility! Umm, NO. Existence is not subject to our perceptions, theories of whatever. Onward! Stephen Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Belief in Big Bang?
On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi John,
1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that attempts to
weave together all of the relevant observational facts together into a scheme that is
both predictive and explanatory. It has built into it certain ontological and
epistemological premises that I have some doubts about.
Such as?
2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until we have a better
explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to explain. We have never actually
detected it. What we have detected is that certain super-novae seem to have light that
appears to indicate that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an
unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so the BBT was
amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of questions is: At what point
are we going to keep adding entities to BBT before we start wondering if there is
something fundamentally wrong with it?
I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the concordance theory in the
literature. It includes the hot Big Bang, inflation, and vacuum energy. The reason Dark
Energy (so called in parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was
already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological constant. It didn't have to
be amended; just accept that a parameter wasn't exactly zero.
It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, for who is the
ultimate arbiter of that question?
There is no ultimate arbiter. What is thought to exist is model dependent and it changes
as theories change to explain new data.
Brent
So, I can present you with a box that I claim contains a coin weighing so many grams and
blah blah, but you have to observe it to know for yourself and you might just happen to
be under the influence of some psychoactive substance that prevents you from seeing
clearly... Or worse case scenario, you might be a victim of a brain-in-a-vat
situation... We have to go through our epistemology and ontology theories to be sure
that they are at least consistent.
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/24/2012 3:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors as concerning
past lit already worked it out. My main objection is *_not_* the linearity in going
back to zero in an expansion that is non-linear and *_not_* the phantasm in
'originating' a world upon partial input (as a total one at the end), it is the
underlying physical thought of explaining (mostly mathematically) a totality of which
we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?) plays into the changes. We learn new details
continually and forge them into the obsolescence to make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our image does not fit.
It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most of which is still hidden - o r
nonexistent at all. We live in a model of our present model-base and consider it ALL.
We learn new aspects (mostly: make them up for explanation) and fit them into our
conventional sciences. These, however, started way before "The Big Bear" and still
include origins of the ancient obsolescence galore. Math is a good soother. If in
trouble, a constant can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be").
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")
Agnostically yours
John Mikes
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote:
Hi John,
What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity that
is part
of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from supernovae
appeared
to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating away from us Do
we give
such "entities" the status of existing on so frail a foundation? The same
critisism
applies to scalar fields and dark matter. Until we actually find them
experimentally, then it is helpful to keep them firmly in the "conjectured
but not
proven to exist category". :-)
My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are backed up by
empirical evidence before we declare them justified. This is not an easy
task as
many entities, such as numbers, are forever beyond the realm of experience
but we
can still reason consistently about them...
Onward!
Stephen
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
" How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a strong
"believer" in the Big Bang?"
If somebody developed a new theory that ex
Re: Belief in Big Bang?
Hi John,
1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that
attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts
together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has
built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises that I
have some doubts about.
2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until
we have a better explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to
explain. We have never actually detected it. What we have detected is
that certain super-novae seem to have light that appears to indicate
that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an
unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so
the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of
questions is: At what point are we going to keep adding entities to BBT
before we start wondering if there is something fundamentally wrong with it?
It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense,
for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? So, I can present you
with a box that I claim contains a coin weighing so many grams and blah
blah, but you have to observe it to know for yourself and you might just
happen to be under the influence of some psychoactive substance that
prevents you from seeing clearly... Or worse case scenario, you might be
a victim of a brain-in-a-vat situation... We have to go through our
epistemology and ontology theories to be sure that they are at least
consistent.
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/24/2012 3:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors
as concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is
*_not_* the linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is
non-linear and *_not_* the phantasm in 'originating' a world upon
partial input (as a total one at the end), it is the underlying
physical thought of explaining (mostly mathematically) a totality of
which we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?) plays into the changes. We
learn new details continually and forge them into the obsolescence to
make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our
image does not fit. It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most
of which is still hidden - o r nonexistent at all. We live in a model
of our present model-base and consider it ALL. We learn new aspects
(mostly: make them up for explanation) and fit them into our
conventional sciences. These, however, started way before "The Big
Bear" and still include origins of the ancient obsolescence galore.
Math is a good soother. If in trouble, a constant can make wonders -
and we can explain its meaning ("it must be"). Or a new chapter in our
calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")
Agnostically yours
John Mikes
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Hi John,
What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture
entity that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of
how light from supernovae appeared to be streached as if the
supernovae are accelerating away from us Do we give such
"entities" the status of existing on so frail a foundation? The
same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark matter. Until we
actually find them experimentally, then it is helpful to keep them
firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to exist category". :-)
My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are
backed up by empirical evidence before we declare them justified.
This is not an easy task as many entities, such as numbers, are
forever beyond the realm of experience but we can still reason
consistently about them...
Onward!
Stephen
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
" How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a
strong "believer" in the Big Bang?"
If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the
Big Bang did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop
the Big Bang like a hot potato and embrace that new theory with
every fiber of my being, until the instant a even better theory
came along. I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
ht
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Jan 24, 11:41 am, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Identical twins have the same genetics and they can disagree with each > > other." > > That tells you nothing, a copy of you that was exact down to the limit > imposed by Heisenberg would disagree with you about all sorts of things, > like who was your wife and who controlled your bank account. Those aren't opinions though, they are differences in the environment. Both heredity and environment influence opinion but opinion is more than that also. It is an accumulation of choices about what is significant in our environment. Just as each day of our lives has more to do with the previous day than it does anything else, so to are our opinions a product of semantic momentum more than they are any physical or environmental substrate. We bring ourselves into any environment and we influence our destiny more by our actions than by our genetic inheritance. > > > We don't see too many people change their opinion midstream without > > knowing why, as would be the case in this cosmic ray scenario. > > You've never seen anybody you know very well act out of character? You've > never surprised yourself and acted out of character and felt foolish and > angry with yourself afterward? We have different parts of ourselves with different agendas that conflict, but we are generally aware that we have changed our minds intentionally and not involuntarily. I have never heard someone say that their mind was changed or opinion was changed against their will. We might say that some influence changed our mind but it is implied that we allowed our minds to be changed and continue to willfully support the change. > > > It's not for a reason, it is through your own reasoning. You are > > providing the reason yourself. > > So it's not for a reason and it's for a reason. Make up your mind! I'm not being ambiguous. For and through are not the same thing. Working for money is not the same as making your own money through a printing press. > > > > you're saying a yellow traffic signal is not red AND not not red, and > >> that my friend is gibberish. > > > > Yellow anticipates red, so the meaning of it can also be considered not > > not-red. > > And that my friend is logical nonsense, if yellow isn't red you can't say > yellow isn't not red either, they teach that in Logic 101. Logic 101 is reductionist theory. It's not reality. Reality always has multiple senses - including some which make the other sense seem irrelevant. That's how sense works - it focuses attention on some phenomena at the expense of everything else. In a literal sense, the yellow light is different from the red light. In a figurative sense, the meaning of the yellow light is 100% contingent on the meaning of the red light, such that the yellow, red, and green lights are all modes of a single traffic signal. The same is true for will. When heredity says 'aggressive' and your environment says 'aggressive not permitted', it is will that decides whether the maybe gap in between should go one way or the other or should fight heredity or change the environment. > So if Free Will > isn't deterministic you can't say it isn't not deterministic either. Of course I can. 'Maybe' is not yes and it is not not-yes. It is it's own conditionality which relates and overlaps to both yes and no but is reducible to neither one. Maybe is actually the primitive from which all yes and no emerges. > And I > seem to remember you accusing me of anthropomorphism and me saying it's a > valid tool but it can be abused, and I think that a color anticipating > something is a example of abuse. It's not the color that is anticipating anything, it is the driver who is feeling anticipation through the yellow signal (or center light if you are color blind) and it's association with the red signal and it's association with the necessity of applying the brakes to avoid traffic accidents and moving violations. > > >>> It's like I'm watching Fox News or something. > > >> >> That's the worst insult I've ever had in my life. > > > > Sorry. Maybe was hyperbole. > > Yeah, call me a scum sucking mutant if you want but don't compare me with > Fox News, that's hitting below the belt. > > > I don't see a difference between will and free will. > > One is cause by something or not caused by something, the other is caused > by nothing and isn't caused by nothing. In other words one makes logical > sense and one does not. What is will caused by? > > > We talk of compulsion and addiction as disorders because they defy our > > will. > > In addiction we want to take drugs, we may want to not want to take drugs > but as the old Rolling Stones song goes "you can't always get what you > want". Right, that's what makes it abnormal. Normally if we don't want to take drugs, we don't take drugs (or overeat, gamble, etc) > > > If there were no free will, society would have no impulse to punish. > > There would be no stigma
Re: Consciousness Easy, Zombies Hard
On Jan 23, 2:12 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Jan 2012, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Part I...I'll have to get back to this later for Part II > > > On Jan 21, 4:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Craig, > > >> I assume comp all along. > > > Then why say that you are agnostic about comp? > > If I was knowing that comp is true, or if I was a believer in comp, I > would not have to assume it. > I study the consequence of the comp *hypothesis*. Unlike philosophers > I never argue for the truth of comp, nor for the falsity of comp. But > as a logician I can debunk invalid refutation of comp. This does not > mean that comp is true for me. > During the Iraq war I have invalidated many reasoning against that > war, but I was not defending it. There were other arguments which were > valid. > But I realize some people lacked that nuance. Just for this modal > logic is very useful, because it is the difference between the > agnostic (~Bg) and the "atheist" (B~g). > When doing science, it is better to hide our personal beliefs, and to > abstract from them. > Okay. I thought by 'I assume comp all along' you meant that you personally assume it is true. > > > > Why do numbers make machines or tapes? Do the want to? Do they > > have a > > choice? > > As much choice and free will than you have. They too cannot > predicts > themselves and can be confronted to making decision with partial > information. > > >>> Where do they get this capacity? > > >> From the laws of addition and multiplication, which makes arithmetic > >> already Turing Universal. > > > Where in addition and multiplication do we find free will? > > Just addition and multiplication (and some amount of logic, which can > be made itself very little) appears to be Turing universal. But it is > a very *low level* programming language, so a proof of the existence > of a Löbian universal number is *very* long, and not easy at all. But > it can be done, and free-will, as I defined it, is unavoidable for > Löbian number. They have the cognitive ability to know that they > cannot predict themselves and have to take decision using very partial > information. This is true for all universal machine, but the Löbian > one are aware of that fact: they know that they have free-will. Of > course some people defines free-will by a sort of ability of > disobeying the natural laws, but this makes free-will senseless, as > John Clark often says. I'm not sure what John Clark's sense of free-will is. Omnipotence? Magic? Not sure. I'm just talking about the ordinary difference between feeling that you are doing something because you are doing it as opposed to feeling that something is happening through no voluntary action on your part. How do you know that Löbian machines have awareness? Or are they defined that way a priori? > > > > >>> Why do we never see it manifested in > >>> our ordinary use of numbers? > > >> With the computer and AI enterprise, you can see the embryonic > >> development of this. > > > It's only embryonic if it develops into a fetus. At this point it > > appears to be developing into a purely human distribution system for > > gossip and porn instead. > > OK. But that is contingent of humans. I really don't know if > "artificial machine" will become intelligent thanks to the willingness > humans, despite the humans, or thanks to the unwillingness of humans. > > > > >> You can also interpret, like Jon Clark did, the DNA as number, coded > >> in the chemistry of carbon, so that we can see it all around. > >> We don't see it in the usual use of little numbers, because it is not > >> there. The relations are either too poor, or not exploited enough. > > > Don't all relations have to arise ultimately from the usual use of > > little numbers? > > Not really. Everything concerning matter and consciousness comes from > an interplay between little numbers, and many big numbers. This comes > from the UDA, which explains that the inside view is somehow a > projection of the whole arithmetical truth. In my language, 'projection of the whole arithmetical truth' = diffraction of the primordial monad. > This leads to something counter-intuitive, but not contradictory. the > big picture conceived from outside is not so big (it is the whole of > just arithmetic). But from inside it is provably bigger than any > formal approximation of the whole of math. It is *very* big. Note that > arithmetical truth is also bigger by itself than we thought before > Gödel. It is already not axiomatisable. There are no effective > theories of numberland. Wouldn't numbers+names land be even bigger? > > > > >> Anyway, you are not convincing by pointing on everyday example, when > >> talking to a theoretician. > > > If the theory doesn't apply to reality, then I have no problem with > > it. Fantasy sports are not my area of interest. It's only if it > > conflicts with my ideas of realism that I would be curious. > > Realism of what? Of experien
Re: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon
On 1/22/2012 1:04 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 21.01.2012 22:03 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following: On 21.01.2012 21:01 meekerdb said the following: On 1/21/2012 11:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 21.01.2012 20:00 meekerdb said the following: On 1/21/2012 4:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... 2) If physicists say that information is the entropy, they must take it literally and then apply experimental thermodynamics to measure information. This however seems not to happen. It does happen. The number of states, i.e. the information, available from a black hole is calculated from it's thermodynamic properties as calculated by Hawking. At a more conventional level, counting the states available to molecules in a gas can be used to determine the specific heat of the gas and vice-verse. The reason the thermodynamic measures and the information measures are treated separately in engineering problems is that the information that is important to engineering is infinitesimal compared to the information stored in the microscopic states. So the latter is considered only in terms of a few macroscopic averages, like temperature and pressure. Brent Doesn't this mean that by information engineers means something different as physicists? I don't think so. A lot of the work on information theory was done by communication engineers who were concerned with the effect of thermal noise on bandwidth. Of course engineers specialize more narrowly than physics, so within different fields of engineering there are different terminologies and different measurement methods for things that are unified in basic physics, e.g. there are engineers who specialize in magnetism and who seldom need to reflect that it is part of EM, there are others who specialize in RF and don't worry about "static" fields. Do you mean that engineers use experimental thermodynamics to determine information? > > Evgenii To be concrete. This is for example a paper from control J.C. Willems and H.L. Trentelman H_inf control in a behavioral context: The full information case IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control Volume 44, pages 521-536, 1999 http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~jwillems/Articles/JournalArticles/1999.4.pdf The term information is there but the entropy not. Could you please explain why? Or alternatively could you please point out to papers where engineers use the concept of the equivalence between the entropy and information? Evgenii In thinking about how to answer this I came across an excellent paper by Roman Frigg and Charlotte Werndl http://www.romanfrigg.org/writings/EntropyGuide.pdf which explicates the relation more comprehensively than I could and which also gives some historical background and extensions: specifically look at section 4. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Belief in Big Bang?
Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors as
concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is *not* the
linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is non-linear and
*not*the phantasm in 'originating' a world upon partial input (as a
total one at
the end), it is the underlying physical thought of explaining (mostly
mathematically) a totality of which we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?)
plays into the changes. We learn new details continually and forge them
into the obsolescence to make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our image
does not fit. It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most of which is
still hidden - o r nonexistent at all. We live in a model of our present
model-base and consider it ALL. We learn new aspects (mostly: make them up
for explanation) and fit them into our conventional sciences. These,
however, started way before "The Big Bear" and still include origins of the
ancient obsolescence galore. Math is a good soother. If in trouble, a
constant can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be").
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers
etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")
Agnostically yours
John Mikes
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture entity
> that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of how light from
> supernovae appeared to be streached as if the supernovae are accelerating
> away from us Do we give such "entities" the status of existing on so
> frail a foundation? The same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark
> matter. Until we actually find them experimentally, then it is helpful to
> keep them firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to exist category". :-)
> My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are backed up
> by empirical evidence before we declare them justified. This is not an easy
> task as many entities, such as numbers, are forever beyond the realm of
> experience but we can still reason consistently about them...
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> " How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a strong
>> "believer" in the Big Bang?"
>
>
> If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the Big Bang
> did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop the Big Bang like a
> hot potato and embrace that new theory with every fiber of my being, until
> the instant a even better theory came along. I have absolutely no loyalty
> toward theories.
>
> John K Clark
>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Consciousness Easy, Zombies Hard
Part II On Jan 21, 4:32 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Locally it looks like that. But I want an explanation of where such > >> things come from. > >> Your "theory" takes too much as granted. > > > I want an explanation of where non-locally is and how it comes to > > influence us locally. > > Non locality is easy. It comes from the fact that each observer's body > is repeated in an infinity of computational histories, so that its > experiences of experiment outputs is determined on infinities of > relative locations. > > Locality is assumed through comp at the meta-level, and more difficult > to recover at the physical level. Comp might be too much quantum. It > might have a too big first person indeterminacy, a too big non > locality, etc. but this remains to be shown, and the logic of self- > references, including the modal nuances we inherit from > incompleteness, suggests that the locality comes from the semantics of > those logics, as UDA somehow makes obligatory. > That seems like another facet of the comp assumption that material is unnecessary - it makes it hard to think of a reason for material qualities like locality to arise. Reality doesn't fit the comp model, unless you decide a priori that comp is reality and reality is the model that has to fit into it, which I would call pathological if taken literally. > > >>> Heh. Now who is discriminating against inanimate objects? > > >> Because they are inanimate, and the evidence that they are dreaming > >> is > >> weak and non refutable. But mainly because they don't exist by > >> themselves. Matter is a consciousness creation, or view from inside > >> arithmetic. It is an epistemological precise notion. That is what I > >> like in the comp hyp: it explains the origin of the beliefs, by > >> "numbers" in physical things, without the need to assume them. > > > But it doesn't explain beliefs themselves. > > Yes, it does. the beliefs are whatever number arithmetical predicate > B(x) verifying the axioms of beliefs, of the machine that we want > interview. Precisely they belief in the axiom of Robinson Arithmetic > (the theory of everything), they believe in the induction axioms, they > might have supplementary local recursively enumerable set of beliefs, > and their beliefs are close for the modus ponens rule. I can't really make any sense out of anything after "Yes, it does." > That is, if > they believe A -> B, then if they believe A they will, soon or later, > believe B. Thanks to the induction axioms, they can be shown to be > Löbian, and they get the octalist view of the arithmetical reality > (with God, Intellect, Soul, intelligible matter, and sensible matter, > to use the Plotinian vocabulary, all this splitted into true and > provable by the incompleteness phenomenon. The belief is rather well > explained, it seems to me, by the Intellect hypostases (the one I > refer often by Bp, and which is Gödel provability predicate). It is > the study of the introspection of the ideally self-referentially > correct machine. What little I can understand of that, it seems like logic defining itself tautologically. It doesn't tell me what is a belief, just what logic does with them once they exist. It's sort of like describing the internet in terms of IP addresses communicating with each other. > > Those machines are clever. They can already refute Penrose-Lucas use > of Gödel's theorem against mechanism. Mechanism cannot be defeated by any mechanistic theorem. That's the key. Subjectivity is the primordial authoritative orientation. It trumps mechanism by asserting itself in it's own terms, not by logical analysis. It needs no proof because it has everything else except proof already. Mechanism has proof and nothing else. It is hollow inside. It doesn’t even ‘have proof’ so much as it can be used subjectively to prove something to oneself or to another subject (if they accept it). > > > Which [beliefs] are much more likely > > to be a figment of consciousness than an asteroid. > > Yes. > > > What believes an > > asteroid into existence? How do we happen to subscribe to all of these > > beliefs? > > Because we share deep computations, linear at the core bottom. Similar to my view of nested awareness, except that the core bottom is just the most linear/literal level of who we (all of us) are. Computations are the relations amongst embodied agents at that level, not disembodied causally efficacious entities. > I guess something like this from both empiric extrapolations, and > from the universal machine introspection. > > > > >>> I understand completely. You are channeling my exact worldview circa > >>> 1990. > > >> That's comp. > > > The comp that you claim to be agnostic about? > > Yes. that is the one. It is my favorite working hypothesis in the > field of theology, or if you prefer, search of theories of everything. > the unification of all forces, from gravitation to love. > First result: assuming comp, the numbers (and their two laws) are
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > Identical twins have the same genetics and they can disagree with each > other." > That tells you nothing, a copy of you that was exact down to the limit imposed by Heisenberg would disagree with you about all sorts of things, like who was your wife and who controlled your bank account. > We don't see too many people change their opinion midstream without > knowing why, as would be the case in this cosmic ray scenario. > You've never seen anybody you know very well act out of character? You've never surprised yourself and acted out of character and felt foolish and angry with yourself afterward? > It's not for a reason, it is through your own reasoning. You are > providing the reason yourself. > So it's not for a reason and it's for a reason. Make up your mind! > > you're saying a yellow traffic signal is not red AND not not red, and >> that my friend is gibberish. >> > > > Yellow anticipates red, so the meaning of it can also be considered not > not-red. And that my friend is logical nonsense, if yellow isn't red you can't say yellow isn't not red either, they teach that in Logic 101. So if Free Will isn't deterministic you can't say it isn't not deterministic either. And I seem to remember you accusing me of anthropomorphism and me saying it's a valid tool but it can be abused, and I think that a color anticipating something is a example of abuse. >>> It's like I'm watching Fox News or something. >>> >> >> >> That's the worst insult I've ever had in my life. >> > > > Sorry. Maybe was hyperbole. > Yeah, call me a scum sucking mutant if you want but don't compare me with Fox News, that's hitting below the belt. > I don't see a difference between will and free will. One is cause by something or not caused by something, the other is caused by nothing and isn't caused by nothing. In other words one makes logical sense and one does not. > We talk of compulsion and addiction as disorders because they defy our > will. In addiction we want to take drugs, we may want to not want to take drugs but as the old Rolling Stones song goes "you can't always get what you want". > If there were no free will, society would have no impulse to punish. > There would be no stigma against crime at all, we would just accept that > nothing has any control over its own behavior. > Don't be ridiculous. If you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't give a hoot in hell if you had bad genes or bad upbringing or were the victim of a unfortunate random quantum fluctuation or if you can control your behavior or not, I just want society to do everything in its power to get you to stop chasing me with that damn ax and to discourage similar activity in the future. > Other people's consciousness is really none of my business. > And yet you think a computers consciousness is our business. Actually from a human viewpoint it doesn't matter if computers are conscious or not, but it does matter that they're smart and getting smarter very very fast. > Anyone can seem intelligent if they are given the answers to the test. > All Watson does is match up questions to the answers it already has been > given. So you think Watson's programers could deduce every single question anybody could ask and then they just wrote up a appropriate answer. That's just foolish. > The test of intelligence is when computers begin killing their > programmers intentionally. It's only a matter of time. > Watson can only outsmart me at Jeopardy. And at checkers and chess and solving equations and at being a research librarian and being a accountant. Give it another 5 years and you can add driver, pilot ,lawyer and physician to the list. > Let us both try figuring out whether or not someone is being sarcastic or > not and we'll see who wins. > Watson is already very good at puns, rhymes and word games, and very often on the net I make some sarcastic wisecrack and people think I'm serious; or at least I think they're people. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Turing’s Thesis the Consequence of a More
On 24 Jan 2012, at 13:23, ronaldheld wrote: Since there was a thread on Turing:arXiv:1201.4504v1 [math.LO] Here is the abstract: We discuss historical attempts to formulate a physical hypothesis from which Turing’s thesis may be derived, and also discuss some related at- tempts to establish the computability of mathematical models in physics. We show that these attempts are all related to a single, unified hypothesis. comments? The author asks if Turing’s Thesis is the Consequence of a More General Physical Principle. So he is unaware of the (comp) mind body problem. It is still a defense of the digital physics thesis, which is non sensical as it should be quasi-obvious for anyone understanding the first person indeterminacy and its main invariance properties. You might ask question if this is not yet clear for you. The opposite thesis is more plausible: the physical principles are a consequence of the Turing thesis. And that is good because the Turing thesis (Church thesis) is more solid on both empiric and conceptual grounds than any primary-physical thesis, which ask for fuzzy strong ontological commitment. Also, the opposite thesis provides perhaps the first rational explanation where the beliefs in the physical laws and the apparent material worlds come from, without assuming a physical reality, nor ad hoc implicit identity theses. So it looks like one more failed attempt to save Aristotle theology, physicalism and naturalism. Note that I am open that Turing thesis is a consequence of a deeper thesis, notably of the thesis of the existence and uniqueness of the standard model of Peano Arithmetic, but that intuition is hard to make precise, and might be using comp at some level (which would make the argument circular). Thanks for the link. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Jan 24, 7:21 am, ronaldheld wrote: > Not certain if this goes here > What about Data from TNG? He could pass the Turing test, and with his > emotion chip on, act like many huminoids. Is he intelligent, > conscious, self aware, etc? > Ronald > He's a fictional character. Kermit the Frog also could pass the Turing test and he is a stuffed cotton bag. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon
On Jan 23, 11:25 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:20:28AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Besides, any such quantitative measure does not take sequence into > > account. A book or file which is completely scrambled down to the > > level of characters or pixels has the same quantity of entropy > > displacement as the in tact text. To reduce information to quantity > > alone means that a 240k text file can be rearranged to be 40kb of > > nothing but 1s and then 200kb of nothing but 0s and have the same > > amount of information and entropy. It's a gross misunderstanding of > > how information works. > > > Craig > > Rearranging the text file to have 40KB of 1s and 200KB of 0s > dramatically reduces the information and increases the entropy by the > same amount, although not nearly as much as completely scrambling the > file. I'd say you have a gross misunderstanding of how these measures > work if you think otherwise. All this time I thought that you have been saying that entropy and information are the same thing: >>"This suggests to me that a molecule of DNA belonging to a kangaroo could >> have no more information than the same molecule with the primary sequence >> scrambled into randomness >That is correct, it would have the same quantity of information, but most >would be of the opinion that the quality has changed. If you are instead saying that they are inversely proportional then I would agree in general - information can be considered negentropy. Sorry, I thought you were saying that they are directly proportional measures (Brent and Evgenii seem to be talking about it that way). I think that we can go further in understanding information though. Negentropy is a good beginning but it does not address significance. The degree to which information has the capacity to inform is even more important than the energy cost to generate. Significance of information is a subjective quality which is independent of entropy but essential to the purpose of information. In fact, information itself could be considered the quantitative shadow of the quality of significance. Information that does not inform something is not information. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Is Turing’s Thesis the Consequence of a More
Since there was a thread on Turing:arXiv:1201.4504v1 [math.LO] Here is the abstract: We discuss historical attempts to formulate a physical hypothesis from which Turing’s thesis may be derived, and also discuss some related at- tempts to establish the computability of mathematical models in physics. We show that these attempts are all related to a single, unified hypothesis. comments? Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
Not certain if this goes here What about Data from TNG? He could pass the Turing test, and with his emotion chip on, act like many huminoids. Is he intelligent, conscious, self aware, etc? Ronald On Jan 23, 5:38 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Jan 23, 10:57 am, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > " It's simpler than that. Inanimate means it can't move" > > > Is a redwood tree an inanimate object? > > No. Trees grow and they die. > > > > > " and it's not alive." > > > If it's alive then it's animate and if it's animate then it's alive and > > round and round to go. > > Not moving makes it inanimate but moving doesn't make it animate. > > > Biologist have tried to come up with a good > > definition of life for a long time but have largely given up on the task > > and use examples instead. Examples are better anyway. > > Yes, I agree. Definitions aren't worth much. > > > > > " I choose to disagree with your view. > > > And you disagree with me for reasons, reasons you are not shy in telling > > me all about. I think those reasons are very weak but it doesn't matter > > what I think, it doesn't even matter if your reasons are logically self > > contradictory; you believe the reasons are good and see no contradiction > > in your statements about them even if I do. Bad reasons work just as > > well as good reasons in making people do and believe in stuff. > > Then what makes you think they are bad? > > > > > "I am not genetically bound to disagree" > > > Maybe, maybe not, it's very difficult to say. > > Not really. Identical twins have the same genetics and they can > disagree with each other. > > > > > "nor does my environment completely dictate my opinion." > > > A high speed proton from a cosmic ray could have entered your > > brain causing you to have a thought you would not otherwise have had, or > > maybe the cause of the thought was a random quantum fluctuation inside > > just one neuron in your brain. > > Something like that could potentially be an influence, but there is no > reason to think that it can dictate my opinion completely. There are > lots of influences that impact an opinion, but mostly they are > semantic. We don't see too many people change their opinion midstream > without knowing why, as would be the case in this cosmic ray scenario. > > > > > " if some random quantum nothingness turned into somethingness in just > > > > the right way, then you would agree with me and there is nothing you can > > > do to change it." > > > Yes. > > > " Do you not see that it is impossible to care about what you write here if > > > > those three options were truly the only options?" > > > No. > > If what you write here is automatic or random then what would be the > point of caring about it? > > > > > "you've been saying that whatever isn't deterministic must be random." > > > Yes. > > > "Neither of us disagree about randomness, so that leaves determinism vs > > > > determinism + choice." > > > This isn't really that difficult. If you made a choice for a reason then > > its deterministic, if you made a choice for no reason then its random. > > It's not for a reason, it is through your own reasoning. You are > providing the reason yourself. > > > > > " Choice is not deterministic and also not random." > > > Then the only alternative is gibberish. > > That is reductionist gibberish. > > > > > " A yellow traffic signal is not red and it is not green." > > > Yes, but you're saying a yellow traffic signal is not red AND not not > > red, and that my friend is gibberish. > > Yellow anticipates red, so the meaning of it can also be considered > not not-red. The yellow signal means nothing other than red is coming. > This is actually analogous to free will. If red is determinism, then > yellow is conscious determination. > > > > > "It's you who are denying the obvious role of free will in our every > > > > conscious moment." > > > The idea of "free will" would have to improve dramatically before I > > could deny it, until then denying "free will" would be like denying a > > burp. > > You can't deny it or not deny it without free will. You would only be > a powerless spectator to your own denial. > > > > > "It's like I'm watching Fox News or something." > > > That's the worst insult I've ever had in my life. > > Sorry. Maybe was hyperbole. > > > > > > > " When I type now, I could say anything. I can say trampoline isotope, > > > > or I can make up a word like cheesaholic. It's not random." > > > OK, if it's not random then there is a reason, so what was the reason > > for linking "trampoline" and "isotope" rather than say "squeamish" and > > "osprey"? If you can answer then there was a reason and thus the > > response was deterministic. If you can not answer then there are 2 > > possibilities: > > > 1) There was a reason but it's deep in your subconscious and your > > conscious mind can not access it, then it was still
