Re: Pratt theory
Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,?ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors?uch as whether or not its a clear?onadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Roger, Please tell us how you know that. If you refer back to Leibniz, then you are treating science like a religion, making Liebniz into a prophet that must be believed. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,�since space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors�such as whether or not its a clear�monadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 *Subject:* Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
On objective vs subjective truth
Hi Bruno Marchal There is objective truth, meaning truth that can be proven and expressed in symbols that you can share. Thus it is not personal or private. Scientific and computer truth is like that. But the more profound truth is subjective, because it is personal, meaning that you simply feel or sense, that you simply know without proof. That cannot be put into words without distorting or destroying. For example, you know you are alive. Religious truth is like that. You say proof schmoof. Kierkegaard thus said Truth is subjective. When you prove the 2 + 2 + 4 and show it, that is objective proof. But to get there I think you have to use intuition, which is subjective. And the acceptance of that truth is subjective. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 14:00:31 Subject: Re: A dialog on pragmatism-- in religion and in science On 22 Aug 2012, at 14:12, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You are healed by admitting you are lost, just as the Bible says. Submission (the fundamental religious/healing act) is required when you are sick or in too much trouble to save or help yourself, so you must turn to something or somebody else for help. You place your faith in them to heal you. 40 years ago, to my good fortune, I suffered from alcoholism and couldn't stop drinking. My life was a mess. So I finally turned myself in to AA. Even further, they say they can't help you unless you turn yourself over to a Higher Power. That's what I did and it worked. Now I submit myself to the words of the Bible. Nobody like addiction, nor slavery. If all drugs were legal, the less addictive would be the most popular. Today the most toxic and addictive common one are still alcohol and smoked tobacco. The current health politics illustrates that the human sciences are still at the stone age, even if the cause of this is just mundane stealing. Today we know plants which cures addiction rather efficiently (Tabernanthe iboga, Salvia divinorum, ...). Anyway way I am happy for you that your method worked for you. And if the bible can inspire you, no problem, as long as you don't claim something like that's the truth. It can reflect some important truth, but it can also reflect some important mistake, where mistake is relative to different conception of the spiritual reality. Some religion allows God's creatures to ask God for forgiveness, but apparently comp is more simple minded on this. With comp if you ask God for forgiveness you are sent to hell, because if you ask forgiveness it means that you have sin, and that's enough. Only those not asking forgiveness have a chance to go to heaven perhaps. Submission does not ring to well for me, but I can buy it in the sense of a let it go, an acceptance of the inevitable, an opening to the lack of control and ignorance, which can also be an openingand a self-abandon to an higher power, but then my God axiom, which fits very nicely with comp, is that such a God has no public name, so here a legend or any text at all have not to be taken too much literally. All moral can be taught only by example, not by summon or text. With comp, you are a text, and texts are terrestrial finite, only pointing to the infinite. With comp there are no public intermediate between God and the Soul. The notion of priest is already problematic, like an insult to God, like if the Almighty was not able to manage the situation. This does not mean that community is not possible, just that there are no guru, only clowns. The theurgy is possible, but only as a gentle self-mockery, or as an occasion to try some technical spiritual path, if someone you personally trust suggest. With comp there are still inner intermediate between God and the Soul. It is a conjecture, but evidences exists. See the Plotinus paper for the translation in arithmetic. In a nutshell, with arithmetical in front (even if technically the knower and the feeler are not arithmetical) god === truth no? === proof soul === knower intelligible matter === observer sensible matter === feeler It is the eight person views: p, Bp, Bp p, Bp Dt, Bp Dt p. This makes five but three of them splits on earth/heaven (by the G/G*) distinction, making them eight. Just listening to the universal machine, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 06:09:43 Subject: Re: A dialog on pragmatism-- in religion and in science On 22 Aug 2012, at 10:24, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER:
Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms
Hi Roger, The unextended aspect of monads is just an expression of the fact that within the monadology, it is not embedded in a space and thus has no measurable size.WE cannot think of monads as we think of atoms in a void. The idea is that we can recover the concept of an external space as a collection of possible locations purely in terms of internal states. On 8/23/2012 6:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,�since space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors�such as whether or not its a clear�monadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* benjayk mailto:benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 *Subject:* Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Pratt theory
Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Pratt theory
Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
Scientific prose vs poetry
Scientific writing is accurate, but usually not concise, because it must be detailed. The truth is in text on paper, is objective, shareable, essentially provable. It does not and indeed should not, go beyond what is reported. I suppose one would call this context-free. An example would be a crime investigator's description of a crime scene. Or a scientific paper. Poetic writing is not concise, nor precisely accurate, indeed may be inaccurate, but can convey an entire world or story with just a few words because they suggest or point to context, and it is context that supplies and even creates meaning. In experiencing the context, or imagined context, the reader actually creates a world in his mind or intuition. Being experienced, the meaning is more personal than scientific truth, but is unbounded. Poets are writers that are sensitive to the effect words have on people, sensitive to context. As an example, here might be the description of a crime scene in poetic form: There was blood everywhere-- on the bed, even splattered on the walls. His head was split open and the gray matter spilled out. I felt sick and had to leave. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-08-22, 15:32:00 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For example, no video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other data as well. We would indeed just find computation. At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing thesis, they can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a computation of a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be merely labels that we use in our programming language. All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play chess. Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not provability, game, definability, etc. OK, this makes sense. In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still holds (saying solely using a computer). For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in the sentence using a formal language like mathematics. English is too ambiguous. If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a definition that includes computers, but does't also include human brains. No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to express something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is intuitively true. Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at the root, since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise definition. For example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer, but this begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0 first. So ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects). So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning that you yourself are not contained in that definition? There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean the usual physical computer, Why not use the notion of a Turing universal machine, which has a rather well defined and widely understood definition? since this is all that is required for my argument. I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition because a human is not a computer according to the everyday definition. A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a human could exist with
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Roger, OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of extension. On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended. You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended. Feelings are inextended. Thoughts are inextended. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:19:29 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard
The need for context or relation in computing
Hi benjayk The left brain metaphor can understand precise logical statements or statements in words. Also called objective truths. What computers can deal with. Truth in symbolic form. Context-free statements. IMHO The right brain metaphor perceives what computers cannot understand (yet), that is, subjective truths, truths in context. Truths of experience. Beauty, love, religious truths. Only intuition or philosophy (monads for example) can deal with those. The left brain metaphpor has been done to death in AI. But the right brain metaphor is practically unexplored. A beginning to that understanding might be by using a language or mechanism that carries at least some context along with it. Or is relational. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:48:24 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For example, no video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other data as well. We would indeed just find computation. At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing thesis, they can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a computation of a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be merely labels that we use in our programming language. All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play chess. Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not provability, game, definability, etc. OK, this makes sense. In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still holds (saying solely using a computer). Of course one can object to this, too, since it is not possible to solely use a computer. We always use our brains to interpret the results the computer gives us. But its still practically true. Just do the experiment and try to solve the question by programming a computer. You will not be able to make sense of the question. As soon as you cease to try to achieve a solution using the computer you will suddenly realize the answer is YES since you didn't achieve a solution using the computer (and this is what the sentence says). The only way to avoid the problem is to hardcode the fact 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a computer'=true into the computer and claim that this a confirmation. But it seems that this is not what we really mean by confirming, since we could program 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a computer'=false into the computer as well. It would just be a belief, not an actual confirmation. Bruno Marchal wrote: just because it can be represented using computation. But ultimately a simple machine can't compute the same as a complex one, because we need a next layer to interpret the simple computations as complex ones (which is possible). That is, assembler isn't as powerful as C++, because we need additional layers to retrieve the same information from the output of the assembler. That depends how you implement C++. It is not relevant. We might directly translate C++ in the physical layer, and emulate some assembler in the C++. But assembler and C++ are computationally equivalent because their programs exhaust the computable function by a Turing universal machine. I think this is just a matter of how we define computation. If computation is defined as what an universal Turing machine does, of course nothing can be more computationally powerful. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34335113.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I don't know if compact manifolds are unique, that's your forte. But monads are definitely not unique-- they are infinitely varied and keep varying. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 12:34:59 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
Hi Roger, Indeed! This corresponds to non-distributive logical lattices.But we still need more details. The best attempt that i have seen on deriving extension was Roger Penrose' spin network idea. On 8/23/2012 8:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Some entities (like my mouse) are extended in space, others (like what I am thinking) are not. It isn't either/or, it''s both/and. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:23:08 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, A lot of people have a very hard time comprehending abstract ideas, they are stuck thinking of them as physical things. A small minority of people are stuck thinking of concepts as purely mental. It is necessary to consider both of these points of view and be able to understand the difference between them. The best analogy of the relation between them is the inside and outside views of a volume filled with hollow spheres.Waht happens if the spheres are actually Klein Bottles? On 8/22/2012 9:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more thinking. Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are merely theoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have extension to physically exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 09:09:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,�since space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors�such as whether or not its a clear�monadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would
...or Plato's All ...On perception (only done directly by God)
I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah), to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely wideband. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:32:34 Subject: On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- 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: Cosmic Consciousness
Hi Richard, Ron Garret's talk here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc is about the best discussion in lay terms that I have found. See at 0:53:46 that there is no real one classical universe. It is just an abstraction that we invent in our minds to make big picture sense of things. On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: On perception (only done directly by God)
Hi Roger, What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that /there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception/. We can still imagine what such a supremum http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Supremum.html exist but such only are real for one individual mind at a time. This is the person relationship with God idea. This is a possible solution to the measure problem that Bruno discusses. On 8/23/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: ...or Plato's All ...On perception (only done directly by God)
Hi Roger, I am just trying for precision. ;-) On 8/23/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah), to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely wideband. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:32:34 *Subject:* On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist That's why I am pleased ro have you as a fellow explorer. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 13:16:14 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Thank God- just an expression. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I am familiar with those idea and several others that are similar (such as that of Matti Pitkanen who I have had long discussions with). Yau and the others seem to retain the same ontological assumptions that modern physics has been using. My philosophical inquiry is exploring alternative ontologies that do not assume primitive physicality as fundamental. This has forced me to go back and dig up all of the prior work, such as Leibniz and Descartes, on ontology. It is ironic but the claimed rejection of philosophical implications and questions by modern physicist and their shut up and calculate attitudes have only deepened the problem that they face. Only recently, physicists like Chris Isham and Roger Penrose have had the timerity to broach the philosophical questions and have faced the problems squarely. On 8/22/2012 12:34 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephen, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is
On intuition and Trust (faith)
Hi John Mikes I think intuition is something like looking for a familiar face in a crowd if you are lost. That somehow has to do with context or memory. One way home feels more right than the other way home. Maybe you don't know the name of the street, or even if the street itself looks familiar, you may want to walk more to the housing than to the business district. You aren't sure, but you place some trust (faith) in going that way. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:11 Subject: intuition Brent Meeker?rote on list: Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you aren't aware of any preceding thought process leading to it.? According to (you?) computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is intuition. Brent ? Dear Brent, ? to 'your' part: is an urge to find some solution one of your thought processes? In speculation you may not realize the train of thoughts leading to whatever is popping up as a solution. It may happen even WITHOUT the urgency I mentioned. Let us say: Just an 'idea' pops up - it may be called intuition. If you are ordered, you may assign it to problems that occupied your mind lately. ? To 'computers': whenever a computer produces a result it is algorithmically based on data IN the hardware/software (you may call it the 'awareness of the computer.)? Proper semantics of new (developing?) territories is of paramount importance.? You are usually VERY clear on such: would your AI agree to such definition, added: a suiting ID for intuition as well? (I might have a hard time to identify intuition. The closest I may come up to NOW is: we may cut into peripheral 'shaving'?nto the limits of our knowledge (I call that creativity) and that may combine into existing questions as callable 'intuition'). JohnM -- 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: Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywith a chanceofthunderstorms
Hi meekerdb Yes, I was wrong, strings do have extension. So they are in spacetime. String theory however does not have extension, so I at least can treat it monadically, since monads have no extension. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 14:53:53 Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywith a chanceofthunderstorms On 8/22/2012 6:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more thinking. Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are merely theoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have extension to physically exist. Who told you that? So far as is known experimentally electrons are point particles and that's how they are modeled in QFT. If string theory turns out to be a better model, they'll have extension in that model - but there's no logical or meta-physical reason that they can't be points. Points are places in space, i.e. world lines in spacetime. 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For example, no video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other data as well. We would indeed just find computation. At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing thesis, they can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a computation of a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be merely labels that we use in our programming language. All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play chess. Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not provability, game, definability, etc. OK, this makes sense. In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still holds (saying solely using a computer). For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in the sentence using a formal language like mathematics. English is too ambiguous. If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a definition that includes computers, but does't also include human brains. No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to express something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is intuitively true. Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at the root, since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise definition. For example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer, but this begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0 first. So ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects). So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning that you yourself are not contained in that definition? There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean the usual physical computer, Why not use the notion of a Turing universal machine, which has a rather well defined and widely understood definition? Because it is an abstract model, not an actual computer. Taking a computer to be a turing machine would be like taking a human to be a picture or a description of a human. It is a major confusion of level, a confusion between description and actuality. Also, if we accept your definition, than a turing machine can't do anything. It is a concept. It doesn't actually compute anything anymore more than a plan how to build a car drives. You can use the concept of a turing machine to do actual computations based on the concept, though, just as you can use a plan of how to a build a car to build a car and drive it. Jason Resch-2 wrote: since this is all that is required for my argument. I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition because a human is not a computer according to the everyday definition. A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a human could exist with the definition of a computer. Computers are very powerful and flexible in what they can do. That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all. Actually it can't be true due to self-observation. A human that observes its own brain observes something entirely else than a digital brain observing itself (the former will see flesh and blood while the latter will see computer chips and wires), so they behaviour will diverge if they look at their own brains - that is, the digital brain can't an exact emulation, because emulation means behavioural equivalence. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Short of injecting infinities, true randomness, or halting-type problems, you won't find a process that a computer cannot emulate. Really? How come that we never ever emulated anything which isn't already digital? What is
Re: Pratt theory
Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. . -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You
Monads and intuition
Hi meekerdb You said According to you, computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is intuition. No, intuition is an experience. You need awareness even though it may be subconscious. it is known, however, that monads however are capable of subconscious or unconscious activity, since they are wholistically mind + feelings + body. So in some way monads may have intuition . Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 15:01:34 Subject: Re: On (platonic) intuition On 8/22/2012 1:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Do computers have intuition ? I believe that intuition is necessary to solve a puzzle or prove a mathematical or logical stratement. To produce something new or previously unknown. Intuiition may be like inference, a form of synthetic thinking, versus analytic thinking. Only synthesis can produce something new. Personally, I wonder if it wasn't intuition that Penrose had in mind when he suggested that in solving problems we sometimes pop pour heads into the platonic realm (my words). Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you aren't aware of any preceding thought process leading to it. According to you computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is intuition. 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.
On thoughts appearing out of nowhere
Hi Richard, That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves through some unseen intelligence). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:35:17 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 Subject: Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal interaction we nd that two events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating all entities of the opposite type. It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to the human mind by way of entangled BECs. The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purely a BEC. So the physical brain must contain a BEC, I imagine, for this theory to work. But I am more interested in the connection of the mind to
Re: Pratt theory
Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 *Subject:* Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. * Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, * * but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions.* 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal interaction we nd that two events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating all entities of the opposite type. It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to the human mind by way of entangled BECs. The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purely a BEC. So
The hypocracy of materialism
Hi John, If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall between mind and matter. Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem, and has no clue what mind or God is, but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Is that hypocracy or what ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:12:13 Subject: Re: Stephen and Bruno Hi John, I have well functioning delete and spam filter buttons that I can use if things get out of hand on my end. ;-) On 8/22/2012 3:23 PM, John Mikes wrote: Stephen, my stance as well on (even controversial) argumentation. HOWEVER (isn't one everywhere?) the 'advancement' one achieves by certain explanations might 'color' one's own ideas into shades unwanted. If you read a well formulated argument it inevitably sticks in your mind and later is hard to separate. A reason why most religious people cannot accept logical (scientific) refutation and fall back into old meme superstition. I appreciate Roger's knowledgeability in ancient (mostly idealistic) theories but his fundamental color is biblical FAITH. I know him from another (nonreligious) list, where I asked the moderator to curtail the amount of those overwhelmingly religious postings - and he did. Roger is still on, but hiding some of his true colors (mostly). (A reason why I refrained from responding to his posts. I want to keep friendly to that other list, too.) You are absolutely right about the topical invigorating by the deluge of posts - add to it that Roger starts from a one-sided position only. Most discussions on the Everything list are also one-sided, but as in the past - from ANOTHER side. (Bruno is close to faithfulness, not a formal religion though, but his mind-body is close to a 'soul' belief.) I used to be a Catholic, then reincarnationalistic (Ouija-board fan), now I can't include into my ongoing worldview (agnosticism, based on the 'infinite complexity', - to us unknowable in toto) WHAT may remain after death of our (human? with trillion microbial biomes) complexity that is destroyed - reshaped AS a memory of ourselves. Which part would 'remember' and 'respond' to a destroyed complexity (us) after we are gone? - Surviving parts MAY connect to different complexities and 'live'(?) as such. It is a pity that Adam and Eve are not 'real'. And do not forget my distinction for the physical world (as we pretend to know it): a figment of yesterday's stance. Leibnitz etc.? I respect those oldies of those (their) times. Best to you John On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Roger, (re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds. The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, you have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger into close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a definitional problem (e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.). You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the majority is closer to your own belief system. YET: Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your posting fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy! Please, consider this a friendly remark. John Mikes Dear John, I think that is is sometimes a good thing to have use shaken out of our doldrums! I like Roger's contributions! They have already helped be make some great advances in my own work. ;-) On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno and Stephen I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings. Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you post! Why are you so wrong. Roger I (am?) glad Roger cleared that up. :-) Brent Shut up he explained. --- Ring Lardner -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: On thoughts appearing out of nowhere
Roger, Well, regarding human consciousness, I believe that our subsconscious contains an invisible intelligence that seems to provide answers that we cannot figure out consciously. Call it the soul if you wish, or the higher self, but may I suggest that that entity may have contact with the supernatural and the wealth of information I suspect it contains, like Platonia.. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard, That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves through some unseen intelligence). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:35:17 *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 *Subject:* Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. * Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, * * but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions.* 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: John Clark-12 wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence is true. Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence without demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but a computer can: 'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true. If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is asserting something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That is a limitation that both you and me and any computer have. The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that from a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any difference. Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more empirical: 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a computer' Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my problem in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible because the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer doesn't answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that you can't succeed and thus that the statement is true. It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of programming the computer the right way. To put it another way, it shows you that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, because you are the one programming it. Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them), if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them. I once played with an artificial life program. The program consisted of little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains. Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at gathering food. But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to find them doing something quite surprising. Something that neither I, nor the original programmer perhaps ever thought of. Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do? If so, why would I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising? Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because we don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it will be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just won't invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give them. It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the universal dovetailer. The universal dovetailer just goes through all computations in the sense of universal-turing-machine-equivalent-computation. As Bruno mentioned, that doesn't even exhaust what computers can do, since they can, for example, prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages don't). It exhausts all the possibilities at the lowest level, which implies exhausting all the possibilities for higher levels. Sorry but that's nonsense. Look at the word: break At the lowest level it is just one word, yet at the higher level there are many possibilities what it could mean. Exactly the same applies to computations. For every computation are there infinitely many possibilities what it could mean (1+1=2 could mean that you add two apples, or two oranges, or that you add the value of two registers or that you increase the value of a flag). Many very long computations are *relatively* less ambigous (relative to us), but they are still ambigous. Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want into this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. Jason Resch-2 wrote: For example: if you exhausted every possible configuration of atoms, you would also exhaust every possible chemical, every possible life form, and every possible human. Only because there is no absolute seperation between levels in actual physical
Re: Scientific prose vs poetry
I beg to differ: Fiction and performance is where people lie to an audience/readership for money, sometimes stumbling on something true. Sometimes even funny, movingly, true. Science is where people do the true stuff. Sometimes bullshitting people for money. Expertise and its derived authority is the performance of the license to bullshit and keep talking like some annoying priest who's sermon never ends and is a virus in both camps. Time and again, it amazes me how people on both sides get caught up in redundant the right, precise way to talk shop/jargon, as if they wanted to belong to some exclusive peer group in high school, not realizing how stupid this looks to the outside world, and how correct the outside world is for thinking that: why does anybody need a degree to have a reason to just chat? I don't see a clear demarcation here between science, art, even theology for that matter, even though a lot of people insist on it. I see the camps moving closer and the boundaries getting fuzzier: A composer without sound engineering skills and sincere belief has competitive disadvantage. Apple's engineering would be nothing without the aesthetics and the mythology, with its theological overtones. Paul Dirac once said: *It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. *Yes, seemingly. And thank heavens for that. m On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Scientific writing is accurate, but usually not concise, because it must be detailed. The truth is in text on paper, is objective, shareable, essentially provable. It does not and indeed should not, go beyond what is reported. I suppose one would call this context-free. An example would be a crime investigator's description of a crime scene. Or a scientific paper. Poetic writing is not concise, nor precisely accurate, indeed may be inaccurate, but can convey an entire world or story with just a few words because they suggest or point to context, and it is context that supplies and even creates meaning. In experiencing the context, or imagined context, the reader actually creates a world in his mind or intuition. Being experienced, the meaning is more personal than scientific truth, but is unbounded. Poets are writers that are sensitive to the effect words have on people, sensitive to context. As an example, here might be the description of a crime scene in poetic form: There was blood everywhere-- on the bed, even splattered on the walls. His head was split open and the gray matter spilled out. I felt sick and had to leave. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 15:32:00 *Subject:* Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com+benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com +benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com +benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For example, no video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other data as well. We would indeed just find computation. At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing thesis, they can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a computation of a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be merely labels that we use in our programming language. All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play chess. Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not provability, game, definability, etc. OK, this makes sense. In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still
The ontological fifrewall between mind and body
Hi Stephen P. King He does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between extended (body) and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out that problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:29:22 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Hi Richard! Wonderful! Another pair of eyes looking at Pratt's work. This is progress! There are a couple open problems, such as how to model large networks of bisimulations but from my toy model study I think I have a solution to that one. The only technical problems are the formulation of a tensor product rule for arbitrary Monads (whose bodies/minds are the logical algebra and topological space couples that Pratt models using Chu_k spaces) and the forgetful version of residuation. I have some ideas on those too... By the way, the entire question of particles/strings/etc. is reduced to a phenomenology/epistemology question that can be addressed using computational simulation modeling and considerations of observational bases. We only need to recover/derive the data not the stuff. The mereology of monads would follow the entanglement scheme of QM (for Chu_k ; k = complex number field) and allow us to use the pseudo-telepathy idea from quantum game theory to model bisimulation networks in a different basis. What I like about this the most is that it offers a completely new paradigm for investigations into physics and philosophy. See http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ph94.pdf for even more discussions. On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of
The ontological firewall between mind and body
Hi Stephen P. King Pratt does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between extended (body) and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out that problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:29:22 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Hi Richard! Wonderful! Another pair of eyes looking at Pratt's work. This is progress! There are a couple open problems, such as how to model large networks of bisimulations but from my toy model study I think I have a solution to that one. The only technical problems are the formulation of a tensor product rule for arbitrary Monads (whose bodies/minds are the logical algebra and topological space couples that Pratt models using Chu_k spaces) and the forgetful version of residuation. I have some ideas on those too... By the way, the entire question of particles/strings/etc. is reduced to a phenomenology/epistemology question that can be addressed using computational simulation modeling and considerations of observational bases. We only need to recover/derive the data not the stuff. The mereology of monads would follow the entanglement scheme of QM (for Chu_k ; k = complex number field) and allow us to use the pseudo-telepathy idea from quantum game theory to model bisimulation networks in a different basis. What I like about this the most is that it offers a completely new paradigm for investigations into physics and philosophy. See http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ph94.pdf for even more discussions. On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The
it takes two to tango. awareness = subject + object
Hi meekerdb This is not rocket science. To be aware you must have both subject and object: awareness = subject + object Neither materialism nor science can provide a subject, since a subject must be subjective. So neither one will permit awareness. Start studying the mnonadology. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 19:15:57 Subject: Re: intuition On 8/22/2012 1:04 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent Meeker wrote on list: Intuition is when a seemingly true proposition pops into your head and you aren't aware of any preceding thought process leading to it. According to (you?) computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is intuition. Brent Dear Brent, to 'your' part: is an urge to find some solution one of your thought processes? In speculation you may not realize the train of thoughts leading to whatever is popping up as a solution. It may happen even WITHOUT the urgency I mentioned. Let us say: Just an 'idea' pops up - it may be called intuition. If you are ordered, you may assign it to problems that occupied your mind lately. To 'computers': whenever a computer produces a result it is algorithmically based on data IN the hardware/software (you may call it the 'awareness of the computer.) Simply because it is in the hardware/software doesn't mean the computer is aware of it, any more than the fact that a thought is formulated in your brain means you are aware of it. It is the popping up that describes the thought's fully formed appearance in consciousness. This requires a certain reflexive capability that we do not bother to include it in the software of most computers because they don't need it. I think evolution has provided us this reflexive capability as a useful adjunct to language and learning. It allows us to succinctly summarize inferences for their future application and to share our reasoning with others. I think we could provide this kind of awareness to robots that need to learn and act autonomously and to also be able to explain their actions. Someday we will probably build Martian rovers with such autonomy. We don't need the rover to explain it's decisions in terms of the binary switching of its CPU, we only need a 'top level' explanation communicated to us or other rovers. So we won't provide a trace of all the CPU states; only a summary that will appear in as the rovers 'intuition'. Of course if the rovers intuition proves to be faulty and it often runs into a ditch; then we will want to have a deeper record and analysis - just as we want to study the brain chemistry and structure of those who go insane. Brent Proper semantics of new (developing?) territories is of paramount importance. You are usually VERY clear on such: would your AI agree to such definition, added: a suiting ID for intuition as well? (I might have a hard time to identify intuition. The closest I may come up to NOW is: we may cut into peripheral 'shaving' into the limits of our knowledge (I call that creativity) and that may combine into existing questions as callable 'intuition'). JohnM -- 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: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi meekerdb IMHO Empty strings are not monads, they are just empty strings. Monads are inextended. Even though they may contain nothing, empty strings are still extended as I see it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 21:35:56 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite. Brent -- Hi Brent, Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? How do you know the world is finite? Most cosmologies allow that the multiverse is infinite in extent. Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. Sure he does. The UD only uses finite resources at any give step - the states are countable and are only executed finitely. It is left as an open problem. This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top - down terms. I am assuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down to the ontology. Physical laws are never 'known'. They are models to explain our observations. If you assume them, then you've assume the model is correct and the ontology is whatever exists in the model. Why would you do that?? He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. I think it is probably a consequence of his theory that persons can only exist when physics exists and vice versa; but it is difficult to work out the implications (especially for me, maybe not for Bruno). This puts the material worlds and immaterial realm on equal ontological footings and joined together in a isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction. That means
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Stephen P. King Science advances one funeral at a time. - Max Planck Max Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 23:45:58 Subject: Re: Pratt theory On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal interaction we nd that two events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating all entities of the opposite type. It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to the human mind by way of entangled BECs. The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purely a BEC. So the physical brain must contain a BEC, I imagine, for this theory to work. Dear Richard, Exactly! This is why I have been so keenly studying that possibility. Unfortunately, papers like that of Tegmark have induced a prejudice in the scientific community against this possibility. No government funding is directed at research in this area. :_( -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 07:05:17 Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Roger, Please tell us how you know that. If you refer back to Leibniz, then you are treating science like a religion, making Liebniz into a prophet that must be believed. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,?ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors?uch as whether or not its a clear?onadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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
Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe to centres of force, which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance, an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such centres of force, Leibniz calls monads. These forces are unextended, not subject to division in space. None, excepting, of course, God, can destroy these monads, and so they are considered to be immortal in essence. Though quantitatively, the monads a.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 07:17:57 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Hi Roger, The unextended aspect of monads is just an expression of the fact that within the monadology, it is not embedded in a space and thus has no measurable size.WE cannot think of monads as we think of atoms in a void. The idea is that we can recover the concept of an external space as a collection of possible locations purely in terms of internal states. On 8/23/2012 6:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,?ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors?uch as whether or not its a clear?onadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Stephen P. King If you can measure it, or potentially do so it's extended. Mass. size, color, voltage, etc. Whatever physical science deals with. Science thus deals exclusively with extended objects. If you can think of something, the thought (Where did i put that damn tie ?) is inextended, although the (out-in-the=world) object of thought (an actual tie in the closet) is extended. Note that the tie you thought of is inextended while being a thought, but extended as a tie actually hanging in the closet. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:18:36 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of extension. On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended. You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended. Feelings are inextended. Thoughts are inextended. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:19:29 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe.
Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms
Hi Stephen P. King No problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:26:50 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms Hi Roger, Indeed! This corresponds to non-distributive logical lattices.But we still need more details. The best attempt that i have seen on deriving extension was Roger Penrose' spin network idea. On 8/23/2012 8:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Some entities (like my mouse) are extended in space, others (like what I am thinking) are not. It isn't either/or, it''s both/and. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:23:08 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, A lot of people have a very hard time comprehending abstract ideas, they are stuck thinking of them as physical things. A small minority of people are stuck thinking of concepts as purely mental. It is necessary to consider both of these points of view and be able to understand the difference between them. The best analogy of the relation between them is the inside and outside views of a volume filled with hollow spheres.Waht happens if the spheres are actually Klein Bottles? On 8/22/2012 9:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more thinking. Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are merely theoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have extension to physically exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 09:09:31 Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,?ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors?uch as whether or not its a clear?onadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- V -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For example, no video exists in the computer - the data of the video could be other data as well. We would indeed just find computation. At the level of the chip, notions like definition, proving, inductive interference don't exist. And if we believe the church-turing thesis, they can't exist in any computation (since all are equivalent to a computation of a turing computer, which doesn't have those notions), they would be merely labels that we use in our programming language. All computers are equivalent with respect to computability. This does not entail that all computers are equivalent to respect of provability. Indeed the PA machines proves much more than the RA machines. The ZF machine proves much more than the PA machines. But they do prove in the operational meaning of the term. They actually give proof of statements. Like you can say that a computer can play chess. Computability is closed for the diagonal procedure, but not provability, game, definability, etc. OK, this makes sense. In any case, the problem still exists, though it may not be enough to say that the answer to the statement is not computable. The original form still holds (saying solely using a computer). For to work, as Godel did, you need to perfectly define the elements in the sentence using a formal language like mathematics. English is too ambiguous. If you try perfectly define what you mean by computer, in a formal way, you may find that you have trouble coming up with a definition that includes computers, but does't also include human brains. No, this can't work, since the sentence is exactly supposed to express something that cannot be precisely defined and show that it is intuitively true. Actually even the most precise definitions do exactly the same at the root, since there is no such a thing as a fundamentally precise definition. For example 0: You might say it is the smallest non-negative integer, but this begs the question, since integer is meaningless without defining 0 first. So ultimately we just rely on our intuitive fuzzy understanding of 0 as nothing, and being one less then one of something (which again is an intuitive notion derived from our experience of objects). So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning that you yourself are not contained in that definition? There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean the usual physical computer, Why not use the notion of a Turing universal machine, which has a rather well defined and widely understood definition? Because it is an abstract model, not an actual computer. It doesn't have to be abstract. It could be any physical machine that has the property of being Turing universal. It could be your cell phone, for example. Taking a computer to be a turing machine would be like taking a human to be a picture or a description of a human. It is a major confusion of level, a confusion between description and actuality. Also, if we accept your definition, than a turing machine can't do anything. It is a concept. It doesn't actually compute anything anymore more than a plan how to build a car drives. You can use the concept of a turing machine to do actual computations based on the concept, though, just as you can use a plan of how to a build a car to build a car and drive it. Jason Resch-2 wrote: since this is all that is required for my argument. I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition because a human is not a computer according to the everyday definition. A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a human could exist with the definition of a computer. Computers are very powerful and flexible in what they can do. That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all. Have you ever done any computer programming? If you have, you might realize that the possibilities for programs goes beyond your imagination. Computers are universal tools, they can become anything and emulate anything in the same way that a CD player is a universal sound emitting system, which can mimic any voice or
Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
How do you know that? On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 07:05:17 *Subject:* Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Roger, Please tell us how you know that. If you refer back to Leibniz, then you are treating science like a religion, making Liebniz into a prophet that must be believed. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,�since space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors�such as whether or not its a clear�monadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 *Subject:* Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
What are monads ? A difficulty
Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: John Clark-12 wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence is true. Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert the following sentence without demonstrating that there is something he can't consistently assert but a computer can: 'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true. If the sentence is true then Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence , if the sentence is false then Benjamin Jakubik is asserting something that is untrue. Either way Benjamin Jakubik cannot assert all true statements without also asserting false contradictory ones. That is a limitation that both you and me and any computer have. The problem is of a more practical/empirical nature. You are right that from a philosophical/analytical standpoint there isn't necessarily any difference. Let's reformulate the question to make it less theoretical and more empirical: 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a computer' Just try and program a computer that is determining the answer to my problem in any way that relates to its actual content. It is not possible because the actual content is that whatever you program into the computer doesn't answer the question, yet when you cease doing it you can observe that you can't succeed and thus that the statement is true. It demonstrates to yourself that there are insights you can't get out of programming the computer the right way. To put it another way, it shows you that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, because you are the one programming it. Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them), if they are not malfunctioning. In this way, we are beyond them. I once played with an artificial life program. The program consisted of little robots that sought food, and originally had randomly wired brains. Using evolution to adapt the genes that defined the little robot's artificial neural network, these robots became better and better at gathering food. But after running the evolution overnight I awoke to find them doing something quite surprising. Something that neither I, nor the original programmer perhaps ever thought of. Was this computer only doing what we instructed it to do? If so, why would I find one of the evolved behaviors so surprising? Of course, since this is what computers do. And it is suprising because we don't know what the results of carrying out the instructions we give it will be. I never stated that computers don't do suprising things. They just won't invent something that is not derived from the axioms/the code we give them. It is hard to find anything that is not derived from the code of the universal dovetailer. The universal dovetailer just goes through all computations in the sense of universal-turing-machine-equivalent-computation. As Bruno mentioned, that doesn't even exhaust what computers can do, since they can, for example, prove things (and some languages prove some things that other languages don't). It exhausts all the possibilities at the lowest level, which implies exhausting all the possibilities for higher levels. Sorry but that's nonsense. Look at the word: break At the lowest level it is just one word, yet at the higher level there are many possibilities what it could mean. Exactly the same applies to computations. For every computation are there infinitely many possibilities what it could mean (1+1=2 could mean that you add two apples, or two oranges, or that you add the value of two registers or that you increase the value of a flag). Many very long computations are *relatively* less ambigous (relative to us), but they are still ambigous. Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want into this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. A sentence (any string of information)
Re: What are monads ? A difficulty
Roger, It seems to me that you are preaching the religion of monads based on Leibniz. Thus as in most religions, there is no opportunity for critical thinking and research. Almost all of what you say of monads below disagrees with string theory. BTW I do not have any questions you are tired of answering, I only have answers for you. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. 燼rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 燢ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 牋 Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, 牋 Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Jason Resch-2 wrote: So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning that you yourself are not contained in that definition? There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean the usual physical computer, Why not use the notion of a Turing universal machine, which has a rather well defined and widely understood definition? Because it is an abstract model, not an actual computer. It doesn't have to be abstract. It could be any physical machine that has the property of being Turing universal. It could be your cell phone, for example. OK, then no computers exists because no computer can actually emulate all programs that run on an universal turing machine due to lack of memory. But let's say we mean except for memory and unlimited accuracy. This would mean that we are computers, but not that we are ONLY computers. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: since this is all that is required for my argument. I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition because a human is not a computer according to the everyday definition. A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a human could exist with the definition of a computer. Computers are very powerful and flexible in what they can do. That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all. Have you ever done any computer programming? If you have, you might realize that the possibilities for programs goes beyond your imagination. Yes, I studied computer science for one semester, so I have programmed a fair amount. Again, you are misinterpreting me. Of course programs go beyond our imagination. Can you imagine the mandel brot set without computing it on a computer? It is very hard. I never said that they can't. I just said that they lack some capability that we have. For example they can't fundamentally decide which programs to use and which not and which axioms to use (they can do this relatively, though). There is no computational way of determining that. For example how can you computationally determine whether to use the axiom true=not(false) or use the axiom true=not(true)? Or how can you determine whether to program a particular program or not? To do this computationally you would need another program, but how do you determine if this is the correct one? Jason Resch-2 wrote: You may not buy into this, but the overwhelming majority of computer scientists do. If you have no opinion one way or the other, and don't wish to investigate it yourself, for what reason do you reject the mainstream expert opinion? That's very simple. Computer science has only something to say about computers, so an expert on that can't be trusted on issues going beyond that (what is beyond computation). To the contrary they are very likely biased towards a computational approach by their profession. Or to put it more rudely: Many computer scientists are deluded by their own dogma of computation being all important (or even real beyond an idea), just like many priests are deluded about God being all important (or even real beyond an idea). Inside their respective system, there is nothing to suggest the contrary, and most are unwilling to step out of them system because they want to be comfortable and not be rejected by their peers. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Actually it can't be true due to self-observation. A human that observes its own brain observes something entirely else than a digital brain observing itself (the former will see flesh and blood while the latter will see computer chips and wires), so they behaviour will diverge if they look at their own brains - that is, the digital brain can't an exact emulation, because emulation means behavioural equivalence. It could be a brain (computer) in a vat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat But even if it weren't, let's say it was an android. Why would knowledge of being an android make it less capable than any biological human? I didn't say that. It just can't be an exact emulation with respect to the actual world and its possibilities. That it would have to be less capable in some respects is another issue. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Short of injecting infinities, true randomness, or halting-type problems, you won't find a process that a computer cannot emulate. Really? How come that we never ever emulated anything which isn't already digital? Non-digital processes are emulated all the time. Any continuous/real number can be simulated to any desired degree of accuracy. It is only when you need infinite accuracy that it becomes impossible for a computer. This is an injection of an infinity. Note that humans cannot add, or multiply real numbers with infinite precision either. OK, so I would have to correct myself and say non-digital and non-abstract. Jason Resch-2 wrote: What is the evidence for
Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, is like a CPU (central processing unit or chip) of a net of blind, passive monads. So everything that happens (even the bad) is caused by the supreme monad or God, which is what christianity teaches us. God has perfect vision and so is He wholly perfect but He but has to act in a contingent, imperfect world that nevertheless must try to follow the laws of physics (so tsunamies can happen) and in which men, so as not to be robots, have the ability to choose between good and evil and unfortunately some do evil. So its not the best world but the best possible world, Roger Clough - Have received the following content - Sender: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:50:02 Subject: Re: On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Roger, What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception. We can still imagine what such a supremum exist but such only are real for one individual mind at a time. This is the person relationship with God idea. This is a possible solution to the measure problem that Bruno discusses. On 8/23/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: On thoughts appearing out of nowhere
Hi Richard Ruquist IMHO Intelligence pervades Nature. Because life is intelligent to some degree, it can't function without knowing how to create energy out of energy. Nothing would work if Nature didn't contain some innate intelligence. Certainly intuition would be impossible. Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:49:09 Subject: Re: On thoughts appearing out of nowhere Roger, Well, regarding human consciousness, I believe that our subsconscious contains an invisible intelligence that seems to provide answers that we cannot figure out consciously. Call it the soul if you wish, or the higher self, but may I suggest that that entity may have contact with the supernatural and the wealth of information I suspect it contains, like Platonia.. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard, That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves through some unseen intelligence). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:35:17 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 Subject: Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 Subject: Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. ?? Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. ?? I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition.? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan,? Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.? I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A.? 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]:? only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of?lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, ? No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in? economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as
Re: Emergence
Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of grains, but is there a number or discrete or smooth process that generates the heap? No! The heap is just an abstract category that we assign. It is a name. On 8/23/2012 9:44 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty
Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, I try to preach Leibniz chapter and verse. I'm still waiting for critical thinking from you. Whatever is in spacetime, such as a string, is extended. Monads aree inextended. I try not to dabble with string theory, at least at this stage. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 11:24:35 Subject: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty Roger, It seems to me that you are preaching the religion of monads based on Leibniz. Thus as in most religions, there is no opportunity for critical thinking and research. Almost all of what you say of monads below disagrees with string theory. BTW I do not have any questions you are tired of answering, I only have answers for you. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P.
Re: The ontological firewall between mind and body
Hi Roger, ontological firewall ? Could you elaborate on exactly what that means to you? BY Pratt, the difference between the two is just a matter of perspective, like the figure-ground. One cannot see both at the same time without cancelling both out. Pratt builds on how the mind and body have transformations that flow in opposite directions. On 8/23/2012 10:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Pratt does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between extended (body) and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out that problem. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms
Hi Roger, What is this quote from? It is interesting! I don't quite agree with it, as the centers are not all that a monad must include for its definition... On 8/23/2012 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe to centres of /force,/ which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance, an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such centres of force, Leibniz calls monads. These forces are unextended, not subject to division in space. None, excepting, of course, God, can destroy these monads, and so they are considered to be immortal in essence. Though quantitatively, the monads a.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Stephen P. King I try to avoid the word existence because, as you show, it can be used in a number of ways ontologically. That's why I use extended and inextended instead. Or try to. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 12:43:58 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Hi Roger, By Existence I mean all that is necessarily possible. By this definition mathematical points and theoretical domains exist. Existence is property neutral, neither defining or excluding what is or what is not. It is not a property. It is what the philosophers attempted to mean by a property bearer and could not escape the illusion of substance. It is Dasein but without the actuality, since this would contradict its neutrality. Both the actual and the possible exist... It is not contingent on observation or measurement or knowledge. On 8/23/2012 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It all depends on what you mean by existence. If by existence you mean dasein (actually being there), then mathematical points or theoetical domains do not exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 23:38:55 Subject: Re: Pratt theory On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of?lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: What are monads ? A difficulty
Hi Roger, I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad. On 8/23/2012 11:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: Emergence
Hi Stephen P. King Complexity seems to be the threshold of a magical transformation. The more commonsense solution or explanation is to invoke Leibniz-like downward causation. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 12:48:51 Subject: Re: Emergence Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of grains, but is there a number or discrete or smooth process that generates the heap? No! The heap is just an abstract category that we assign. It is a name. On 8/23/2012 9:44 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a computer' If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement PERIOD. Any limitation a computer has you have the exact same limitation. And there are many many times the ONLY way to determine the truth of a statement is by programming a computer, if this were not true nobody would bother building computers and it wouldn't be a trillion dollar industry. To put it another way, it shows you that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, because you are the one programming it. But it's only a matter of time before computers start programing you because computers get twice as smart every 18 months and people do not. Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them) That is certainly not true, if it were there would be no point in instructing computers about anything. Tell me this, if you instructed a computer to find the first even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of two primes greater than 2 and then stop what will the computer do? It would take you less than 5 minutes to write such a program so tell me, will it ever stop? You might say we only do what we were instructed to do by the laws of nature, but this would be merely a metaphor, not an actual fact (the laws of nature are just our approach of describing the world, not something that is somehow actually programming us). We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things because of the laws of nature, and if we do not then we are random. Let's take your example 'Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence' is true.. I can just say your sentence is meaningless. It's not my example it's your example, you said sentences like this prove that you have fundamental abilities that computers lack, and that of course is nonsense. Saying something is meaningless does not make it so, but suppose it is; well, computers can come up with meaningless gibberish as easily as people can. The computer can't do this, because he doesn't know what meaningless is I see absolutely no evidence of that. If you were competing with the computer Watson on Jeopardy and the category was meaningless stuff I'll bet Watson would kick your ass. But then he'd beat you (or me) in ANY category. Maybe that is what dinstinguishes human intelligence from computers. Computers can't recognize meaninglessness or meaning. Humans often have the same difficulty, just consider how many people on this list think free will means something. My computer doesn't generate such questions But other computers can and do. and I won't program it to. But other people will. 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: Emergence
It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness. Weak emergence is like your grains of sand. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of grains, but is there a number or discrete or smooth process that generates the heap? No! The heap is just an abstract category that we assign. It is a name. On 8/23/2012 9:44 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: Re: The ontological firewall between mind and body
Hi Stephen P. King No, it's not just a matter of perspective, and his philosophy is illogical. The firewall is there to separate things that should not and can not possibly mix or exhange anything between them by themselves. Most prominently, in materialism, it is the firewall between mind and brain. Nobody's ever been able to interface them, hence there is no feasible solution mind and brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 12:56:53 Subject: Re: The ontological firewall between mind and body Hi Roger, ?? ontological firewall ? Could you elaborate on exactly what that means to you? BY Pratt, the difference between the two is just a matter of perspective, like the figure-ground. One cannot see both at the same time without cancelling both out. Pratt builds on how the mind and body have transformations that flow in opposite directions. On 8/23/2012 10:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? Pratt does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between extended ?(body) and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out that problem. ? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty
Roger, All I have ever given you is critical thinking based on string theory. but you seem uninterested. How does parroting what Leibniz amount to critical thinking. It's really religion. Your limiting yourself by not learning string theory which is all about monads.. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, I try to preach Leibniz chapter and verse. I'm still waiting for critical thinking from you. Whatever is in spacetime, such as a string, is extended. Monads aree inextended. I try not to dabble with string theory, at least at this stage. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 11:24:35 *Subject:* Re: What are monads ? A difficulty Roger, It seems to me that you are preaching the religion of monads based on Leibniz. Thus as in most religions, there is no opportunity for critical thinking and research. Almost all of what you say of monads below disagrees with string theory. BTW I do not have any questions you are tired of answering, I only have answers for you. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Don't be silly with me On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. 牋� Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. 牋� I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, 牋� Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition.� Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, 牋� The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, 牋� Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, 牋� I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan,� Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.� I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A.� 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]:� only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of燼lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, � No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of
Re: Re: Pratt theory
I know and that's not science On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 *Subject:* Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. * Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, * * but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions.* 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete,
Re: Pratt theory
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an explanation of what you mean by ...method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness? Are you considering how meta-theory Y can prove statements in a theory X where X /subtheory of Y? On 8/23/2012 9:24 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard snip -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms
Millions of times cause it just ain't true. But I do not want to interfere with your religion In string theory monads are definitely things in themselves. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are reference to things, are like bookmarks. They aren't the things themselves. How many times do I have tio keep explaining this to you ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 11:10:48 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms How do you know that? On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 07:05:17 *Subject:* Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Roger, Please tell us how you know that. If you refer back to Leibniz, then you are treating science like a religion, making Liebniz into a prophet that must be believed. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,�since space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors�such as whether or not its a clear�monadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 *Subject:* Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't
Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms
Hi Stephen P. King It's from http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_leib.html and was just the first link that came up in Google. Just Google on monad and a whole set of other links will pop up. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 12:59:19 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms Hi Roger, What is this quote from? It is interesting! I don't quite agree with it, as the centers are not all that a monad must include for its definition... On 8/23/2012 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe to centres of force, which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance, an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such centres of force, Leibniz calls monads. These forces are unextended, not subject to division in space. None, excepting, of course, God, can destroy these monads, and so they are considered to be immortal in essence. Though quantitatively, the monads a.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
More religion On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, is like a CPU (central processing unit or chip) of a net of blind, passive monads. So everything that happens (even the bad) is caused by the supreme monad or God, which is what christianity teaches us. God has perfect vision and so is He wholly perfect but He but has to act in a contingent, imperfect world that nevertheless must try to follow the laws of physics (so tsunamies can happen) and in which men, so as not to be robots, have the ability to choose between good and evil and unfortunately some do evil. So its not the best world but the best possible world, Roger Clough - Have received the following content - *Sender:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:50:02 *Subject:* Re: On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Roger, What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that *there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception*. We can still imagine what such a supremumhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/Supremum.htmlexist but such only are real for one individual mind at a time. This is the person relationship with God idea. This is a possible solution to the measure problem that Bruno discusses. On 8/23/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Emergence
Hi Richard, Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents. OK, but irreducibility would have almost the same meaning as implying the non-existence of relations between the constituents and the emergent. It makes a mathematical description of the pair impossible... I don't think that I agree that it is derivable from Godel Incompleteness; I will be agnostic on this for now. Could you explain how it might? On 8/23/2012 1:10 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness. Weak emergence is like your grains of sand. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of grains, but is there a number or discrete or smooth process that generates the heap? No! The heap is just an abstract category that we assign. It is a name. On 8/23/2012 9:44 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, OK! I'll read it. On 8/23/2012 1:16 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an explanation of what you mean by ...method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness? Are you considering how meta-theory Y can prove statements in a theory X where X /subtheory of Y? On 8/23/2012 9:24 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard snip -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Emergence
Stephan, Strong emergence follows from Godel's incompleteness because in any consistent system there are truths that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. That is what is meant by incompleteness. Sounds like what you just said. No? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents. OK, but irreducibility would have almost the same meaning as implying the non-existence of relations between the constituents and the emergent. It makes a mathematical description of the pair impossible... I don't think that I agree that it is derivable from Godel Incompleteness; I will be agnostic on this for now. Could you explain how it might? On 8/23/2012 1:10 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness. Weak emergence is like your grains of sand. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of grains, but is there a number or discrete or smooth process that generates the heap? No! The heap is just an abstract category that we assign. It is a name. On 8/23/2012 9:44 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms
Hi Roger, OK, but I am a bit partial toward descriptions that allow for something approximating a mathematical description, if only to make them more intelligible in technical communications. The Swami's discussion is more theological than anything else. On 8/23/2012 1:18 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's from http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_leib.html and was just the first link that came up in Google. Just Google on monad and a whole set of other links will pop up. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 12:59:19 *Subject:* Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms Hi Roger, What is this quote from? It is interesting! I don't quite agree with it, as the centers are not all that a monad must include for its definition... On 8/23/2012 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe to centres of /force,/ which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance, an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such centres of force, Leibniz calls monads. These forces are unextended, not subject to division in space. None, excepting, of course, God, can destroy these monads, and so they are considered to be immortal in essence. Though quantitatively, the monads a.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Emergence
Hi Richard, You mean provable statements not truths per se... I guess. OK, I haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep Godel's theorems reserved for special occasions. It has my experience that they can be very easily misapplied. On 8/23/2012 1:24 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Strong emergence follows from Godel's incompleteness because in any consistent system there are truths that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. That is what is meant by incompleteness. Sounds like what you just said. No? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents. OK, but irreducibility would have almost the same meaning as implying the non-existence of relations between the constituents and the emergent. It makes a mathematical description of the pair impossible... I don't think that I agree that it is derivable from Godel Incompleteness; I will be agnostic on this for now. Could you explain how it might? On 8/23/2012 1:10 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness. Weak emergence is like your grains of sand. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of grains, but is there a number or discrete or smooth process that generates the heap? No! The heap is just an abstract category that we assign. It is a name. On 8/23/2012 9:44 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty
Hi Stephen P. King hmmm. Quanta and monads are singular entities. QM has the dualism particle/wave Monadology has extended/inextended. These might be construed as similar. But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective unless the waveform is subjective. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:03:04 Subject: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty Hi Roger, I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad. On 8/23/2012 11:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist I meant that literally, not as an insult. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:14:30 Subject: Re: Re: Pratt theory Don't be silly with me On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. ? Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. ? I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of?lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice
Re: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty
The waveform is subjective as it represents a particular quantum state. In COMP terms it is 3p. But comp people may not think of it as subjective since every quantum state is realized and therefore all quanta are objective. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King hmmm. Quanta and monads are singular entities. QM has the dualism particle/wave Monadology has extended/inextended. These might be construed as similar. But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective unless the waveform is subjective. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 13:03:04 *Subject:* Re: What are monads ? A difficulty Hi Roger, I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad. On 8/23/2012 11:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. The world is filled with monadswas just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy). A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive. Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the subject of a sentence. As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. Personally I would correct that to say no parts at the level of image magnification intended. This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates would be a monad. A monad has to be, as they say, the whole enchilada. I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety. Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in spacetime. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:28:33 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word filled. Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist Leibniz does not contradict science in any way. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:14:59 Subject: Re: Re: Pratt theory I know and that's not science On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 Subject: Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywithachanceofthunderstorms
Hi Richard Ruquist What isn't true ? Give me an example. Leibniz isn't a religion, but doesn't contradict relion. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:17:58 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywithachanceofthunderstorms Millions of times cause it just ain't true. But I do not want to interfere with your religion In string theory monads are definitely things in themselves. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are reference to things, are like bookmarks. They aren't the things themselves. How many times do I have tio keep explaining this to you ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 11:10:48 Subject: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms How do you know that? On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 07:05:17 Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Roger, Please tell us how you know that. If you refer back to Leibniz, then you are treating science like a religion, making Liebniz into a prophet that must be believed. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an outside that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively outside view defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an outside view are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, monads are by definition nonlocal does not mean that space does not exist. Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,?ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how near (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors?uch as whether or not its a clear?onadic weather day. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be
Re: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
Hi Richard Ruquist Sorry, I used the word God instead of supreme monad. I did indicate that the first time at least, Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God... Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:19:10 Subject: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe More religion On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ? The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . ? Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, ?s like a?PU (central processing unit or chip) of a net of blind, passive monads. ? So everything that happens (even the bad) is caused by the supreme monad or God, which is what christianity teaches us. God has perfect vision?nd so is He wholly perfect but He but has to act in a contingent, imperfect world that nevertheless must try to follow the laws of physics (so tsunamies can happen) and in which men, so as not to be robots, have the ability to choose between good and evil and unfortunately some do evil. So its not the best world but the best possible world, ? Roger Clough ? ? - Have received the following content - Sender: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:50:02 Subject: Re: On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Roger, ?? What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception. We can still imagine what such a supremum exist but such only are real for one individual mind at a time. This is the person relationship with God idea. This is a possible solution to the measure problem that Bruno discusses. On 8/23/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi ? Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible? if the receptor (God) has?ideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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: What are monads ? A difficulty
On 8/23/2012 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King hmmm. Quanta and monads are singular entities. QM has the dualism particle/wave Monadology has extended/inextended. These might be construed as similar. But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective unless the waveform is subjective. Hi Roger, A QM system is not just a wavefunction; the wavefunction is just one of its canonical descriptions. The unitary evolution of a QM system is a computation (minus the input and output). Thus by Bruno's reasoning it has a 1p and is, as you say, subjective. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 13:03:04 *Subject:* Re: What are monads ? A difficulty Hi Roger, I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: The bicameral mind
Dear Alberto, I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am not conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and yet am conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the sense of rejecting relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern progressives seem to be anti-progressive in their actions and so I think of them as just naive or worse. On 8/23/2012 1:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Roger, I tend to believe what you say. But, in an effort to be objective, I belive that emotionality is the trait that apeear in a culture when it is dominant and mostly unchallenged. Now the progressive culture is dominant, so the lazy-thinking people go to the progressive culture, but this neither is the root nor defines the progressive culture. At least I don´t think that people Mill or Rawls are emotional. They may be very coold. However there is something demagogic and self-indulgent in every progressive ideology, this makes more lazy.thinking people in its side. Both groups have two different ideas of what reality is, and two different ideas of human nature. Progressives may be or may not be very rational, but they start with different beliefs, so that even with equal goals, the consequences for action are completely different than in the case of conservatives. I´m conservative, this is evident, this is a disclaimer, but if I as conservative and more or less rational were persuaded that the social reality is not a consequence of human nature, but the result of an external ideological repression which make very difficult a possible unlimited human and material progress , if I were persuaded that all men have not inside the seeds for evil, so that the evil could be eradicated by political measures, then i would be progressive with the same rationality, and with the same goals of doing the best for the whole society. For this reason, it is necessary to gain a scientific knowledge of human nature, I believe that evolutionary theory brings so. the gofod news for me is that the picture that emerges from it is conservative. The bad news is that the progressives feels themselves challenged in their beliefs and they will not accept it easily. 2012/8/21 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona I suppose I opened a can of worms; I really don't want to get into a political argument, because never the twain shall meet. They speak completely different languages. Two completely different views, two different tribes always at war with one another. Because of the bicameral mind metaphor (Jaynes and others): *Left brain metaphor* (top or intellectual portion of monad humunculus) Conscious, thinking, discreteness, sequential, control, logic, yang, male, ego, insistent, sun *Right brain metaphor* (feeling or middle portyion of monad humunculus) Subconscious, Feeling, global, nonlinear thinking, submission, aesthetics, yin, female, noninsistent, moon Two different tribes, the ought or moral coming from the right hand brain metaphor, the is coming from the left hand brain metaphor. The bicameral mind Let me just state my basis for the assignments. I think Lakoff wrote a book not long ago on the subject of words and politics. Liberal (ought) arguments are usually morally based (we can't let the poor starve so we need to tax the greedy rich) while conservatives try to reply using the is weapons of facts and logic (we can't afford that stuff, we're going bankrupt). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno and Stephen,
This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left
brain decisions for human safety.
Ought must rule over is (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume, for the
safety of humanity)
Passion must rule over reason (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume,
for the safety of humanity)
Acceptace of proof dominates proof (common sense psychology)
Thus you can objectively, mathematically prove that 2+2=4, but you
still have to subjectively accept that psychologically.
Woman always gets the last word.
No problem here. That fits nicely with the Bp versus Bp p
duality, which is just the difference between rational belief and
rational knowledge (true rational belief).
It took time to realize that when we define the rational belief by
formal proof, which makes sense in the ideal correct machine case,
although knowledge and belief have the same content (the same
arithmetical p are believed), still, they obey to different logics.
This is a consequence of incompleteness. Rational beliefs obey to a
modal logic known as G (or GL, Prl, K4W, etc.) and true rational
belief obeys to a logic of knowledge (S4), indeed known as S4Grz.
G is
[](p - q) - ([]p - []q)
[]p - [][]p
[]([]p - p) - []p
with the rules A, A-B / B and A / []A
S4Grz is
[](p - q) - ([]p - []q)
[]p - [][]p
[]([](p - []p) - p) - p
with the rules A, A-B / B and A / []A
Bruno
Dear Bruno,
It might help us immensely if you could tell us how to read
these symbolic representations. Not all of us speak that language!
There are English words for all of these symbols!
???
The only differences with elementary propositional logic are that we
have one symbol more, the box [], and one more inference rule.
It is a unary operator symbol, so if X is a formula, []X is a formula,
like ~X.
The inference rule is that you can derive []p from p. Careful, this
does not make p - []p true in most modal logic.
I wrote often the box [] by using the letter B.
In the axiom above, it is better to not interpret the box, as this can
confuse with the representation theorem which associate meaning
mathematically.
I have often talked about Bp and Bp p, with Bp having the
arithmetical provability meaning (Gödel 1931).
G above is the logic of Gödel's beweisbar predicate. For example the
second incompleteness theorem is given by Dt - ~BDt, or t -
~[]t, or consistent('t') - NOT PROVABLE (CONSISTENT 't')), with for
example t = 0=0, et 't' = Gödel number of 0=0.
S4Grz above is the corresponding logic of the first person associated
to the machine, given by beweisbar('p') p, following Theatetus, and
then Boolos, Goldblatt, Artemov. I have provided many explanations on
this list, including an introduction to modal logic and the Kripke
semantics, but you can also open some book in logic to help yourself.
G and S4Grz are the two machineries illustrating (and formalizing
completely at the propositional modal) two important arithmetical
hypostases discovered by the UM when looking inward. G is the logic of
third person self-reference and S4Grz is the logic of the first person
self-reference.
There are six other hypostases, or machine's points of view, three of
them playing a role in the creation of the collective persistent
matter hallucination. Comp makes obligatory that persistence, and it
can be tested, and it can be argued that the presence of p - []p as
a theorem in SGrz1 and Z1* and X1* confirms it in great part.
Interactions can be defined in a manner similar to Girard, and then
tested on those material hypostases. I think that this is explained
in the second part of the sane04 paper.
The 1 added to the system refers to the fact that we eventually
limit the arithmetical translation of the sentence letters (p, q,
r, ...) to the sigma_1 sentences, which models the UD in arithmetic.
In particular Richard Ruquist's theory that fundamental physics is
given by string theory becomes testable with respect to comp, as UDA
shows that the physics is entirely retrievable from the S4Grz1, Z1*
and/or X1*, and their first order modal extension.
It is not as difficult as most paper your refer to, and it is only one
paper, and you got the chance to ask any question to the author :)
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree
with such an idea: I use the scientific method, which means that you
cannot disagree with me without showing a precise flaw at some step in
the reasoning.
You seem to follow the seven first steps, so that in particular you
grasp apparently that COMP + ROBUST-UNIVERSE entails the reversal
physics/arithmetic, and the explanation why qualia and quanta
separate. Are you sure you got this? Step 8 just eliminates the
ROBUST-UNIVERSE assumption in step 7.
Then
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Jason Resch-2 wrote: Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want into this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any possible way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning. If you see a particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty clearly be interpreted as addition, for example. A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates symbols (that is the definition of a computer), and symbols need a meaning outside of them to make sense. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write a program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD doesn't do. But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the UD. First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation. Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD. The UD itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that dilineates on program from the others. Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory space. This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it just uses its own memory space. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program. No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation. You can only interpret entities into it. Why do I have to? As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be conscious? Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only contains symbols that are manipulated in a particular way. The definitions of the UD or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't contain a reference to entities. So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination. It is like 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about putting an apple into a bowl with an apple already in it. You can interpret that into it, and its not necessarily wrong, but it is not part of the equation. Similarily you can interpret entities into the UD and that is also not necessarily wrong, put the entities then still are not part of the UD. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: It is similar to claiming that it is hard to find a text that is not derived from monkeys bashing on type writers, just because they will produce every possible output some day. Intelligence is not simply blindly going through every possibility but also encompasses organizing them meaningfully and selecting specific ones and producing them in a certain order and producing them within a certain time limit. And there are processes that do this, within the UD. No. It can't select a computation because it includes all computations. To select a computation you must exclude some compuations, and the UD can't do that (since it is precisely going through all computations) So it selects them all, and excludes nothing. How is this a meaningful limitation? If you look at two entities, X, and Y. X can do everything Y can do, and more, but Y can only do a subset of what X does. You say that X is more limited than Y because it can't do only what Y does. That's absolutely correct. A human that (tries to) eat all of the food in the supermarket is more limited (and dumb) than a human that just does a subset of this, picking the food it wants and eat that. The former human is dead, or at least will have to visit the hospital, the latter is well and alive. Less is indeed more, in many cases. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: The UD is an example that programs can grow beyond the intentions of the creator. I don't dispute that at all. I very much agree that computer rise beyond the intention of their users (because we don't actually know what the program will actually do). Okay. Do you believe a computer program could evolve to be more intelligent than its programmer? No, not in every way. Yes, in many ways. Computer already have, to some degree. If we take IQ as a measure of intelligence, there are already computers that score better than the vast majority of humans. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120214100719.htm Really it is not at all about intelligence in this sense. It is more about awareness or universal intelligence. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: The UD itself isn't intelligent, but it contains intelligences. I am not even saying that the UD isn't intelligent. I am just saying that humans are intelligent in a way that the UD is not (and actually the opposite is true as well). Okay, could you clarify in what ways we are more
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Sorry, I am not going to answer to your whole post, because frankly the points you make are not very interesting to me. John Clark-12 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by programming a computer' If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement PERIOD. OK, take the sentence: 'Not all sentences have unambigous truth values - by the way you won't be able to determine that this sentence doesn't have a unambigous truth value by using a computer ' The same paradox applies but the statement is clearly practically true because it has no unambigous answer. John Clark-12 wrote: To put it another way, it shows you that it is really just obvious that you are beyond the computer, because you are the one programming it. But it's only a matter of time before computers start programing you because computers get twice as smart every 18 months and people do not. So transistor count and smartness are the same? So if I have 10100 transistors that compute while(true) then you have something that is unimaginable much smarter than a human? John Clark-12 wrote: Computers do only what we instruct them to do (this is how we built them) That is certainly not true, if it were there would be no point in instructing computers about anything. The definition of a computer is that it precisely carries out the instructions it is given. John Clark-12 wrote: Tell me this, if you instructed a computer to find the first even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of two primes greater than 2 and then stop what will the computer do? It would take you less than 5 minutes to write such a program so tell me, will it ever stop? I don't know. This doesn't relate to whether it carries out the instructions it is given at all. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34340705.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
John Clark Aug 23 01:08PM -0400 We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things because of the laws of nature, and if we do not then we are random. The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined externally. We are not merely followers of the laws of nature, we also create them, modify them, revolutionize them. Our intentionality even varies, from non-existent reflex to near libertarian control over aspects of our bodies and mind. Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them, what with their own robotic or random 'opinions'? We have gone around this enough times to know that you aren't going to change your view, I just find it striking that you don't see that the logic of this arbitrary assertion which you keep repeating is blind and circular. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GKxMWSH5dYQJ. 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: On (platonic) intuition
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Do computers have intuition ? Certainly. The self driving cars that the people at Google and others have had so much success with lately wouldn't work without intuition; the car's memory banks are filled with statistical laws and rules of thumb to figure out the best path to get from point X to point Y. We know it's intuition and not rigid logic because sometimes, just like with humans, the computer's intuition is wrong, and sometimes, just like with humans, they end up in a ditch. 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: The hypocracy of materialism
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Correct. But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall between mind and matter. I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is and what solving it is supposed to mean. and has no clue what mind or God is, God is dog spelled backward. but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts. Is that hypocracy or what ? Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. 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: The hypocracy of materialism
2012/8/23 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Correct. But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall between mind and matter. I make changes in the matter of your brain and your mind changes. When your mind changes, such as when you figure the coffee cup should be at your lips and not on the table the position of the matter in the coffee cup changes. That's sounds like a pretty BAD firewall, even Microsoft can make a better firewall than that! Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the mind/body problem is An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body. and what solving it is supposed to mean. Know how consciousness works and how it is related to the physical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem Quentin and has no clue what mind or God is, God is dog spelled backward. but demands proof of any religious statement or concept. Science has explained a lot of things, it's true it hasn't explained everything but it's explained a lot, so I don't understand why embracing religion is supposed to help when RELIGION CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. Science can't explain everything so you want to switch to something that can't explain anything. It's nuts. Is that hypocracy or what ? Its not hypocrisy so it must be what. 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree with such an idea: I use the scientific method, which means that you cannot disagree with me without showing a precise flaw at some step in the reasoning. You seem to follow the seven first steps, so that in particular you grasp apparently that COMP + ROBUST-UNIVERSE entails the reversal physics/arithmetic, and the explanation why qualia and quanta separate. Are you sure you got this? Step 8 just eliminates the ROBUST-UNIVERSE assumption in step 7. Dear Bruno, I claim that step 8 is invalidated by the fact that you must use the physical medium to interact (communicate) the abstract concept. If we take step 8 literally, this would not occur and thus obtain a contradiction. You seem to not realize the price that you must pay for immaterialism. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: OK, take the sentence: 'Not all sentences have unambigous truth values - by the way you won't be able to determine that this sentence doesn't have a unambigous truth value by using a computer ' OK, if I changed by using a computer to by asking Benjamin Jakubik explain to me why at the fundamental logical level things would be different. So transistor count and smartness are the same? Not a bad first order approximation. Software is improving too, maybe not at the breakneck pace of hardware evolution but still much faster than humans are improving their software. So if I have 10100 transistors that compute while(true) then you have something that is unimaginable much smarter than a human? In a word yes. And I must say that 10100 is a pretty big number considering that there are only 10^ 80 atoms in the observable universe. if you instructed a computer to find the first even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of two primes greater than 2 and then stop what will the computer do? It would take you less than 5 minutes to write such a program so tell me, will it ever stop? I don't know. I don't know either, nobody knows, even the computer doesn't know if it will stop until it finds itself stopping; if you want to know what it's going to do there is no shortcut, all you can do is watch it and see. This doesn't relate to whether it carries out the instructions The computer will either stop or it will not and the difference depends on your instructions. You said The definition of a computer is that it precisely carries out the instructions it is given so is the implicit order to stop included in find the first even integer greater than 4 that is not the sum of two primes greater than 2 and then stop? Saying the computer only does what we tell it to do doesn't mean much in a case like this because it is far from clear what the implications of our orders will be. 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: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and sequences of numbers, making the body problem into a problem of arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem. You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to present it. Dear Bruno, It is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have nothing with which to touch each other. All they can do is imagine the possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of imagining the possibility of X (a string of recursively enumerable coding the computational simulation of X). This would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource availability! My dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very well. ;-) By the way, I only asked from a verbal - written English version of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for. G is [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p []([]p - p) - []p with the rules A, A-B / B and A / []A S4Grz is [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p []([](p - []p) - p) - p with the rules A, A-B / B and A / []A These symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come out of your mouth? Could those words be transcribed here for the readers of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to - ? Implies? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/23/2012 2:18 PM, benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory space. This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it just uses its own memory space. What constitutes the memory space of the UD? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined externally. I see, you did it but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it for no reason. I think Lewis Carroll best summed up your ideas on this subject: T was brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason either exists or it does not. If other people pay attention to my views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason. If other people do NOT pay attention to my views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason. 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined externally. I see, you did it but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it for no reason. I think Lewis Carroll best summed up your ideas on this subject: T was brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Are your opinions on free will robotic or random? In either case, would there be any point in anyone else paying attention to them Point? It sounds like you're asking for a reason, well such a reason either exists or it does not. If other people pay attention to my views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason. If other people do NOT pay attention to my views they do so for a reason or they do not do so for a reason. John K Clark Does the chain of reasons stop at some point or is it an infinite regress? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning that you yourself are not contained in that definition? There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean the usual physical computer, Why not use the notion of a Turing universal machine, which has a rather well defined and widely understood definition? Because it is an abstract model, not an actual computer. It doesn't have to be abstract. It could be any physical machine that has the property of being Turing universal. It could be your cell phone, for example. OK, then no computers exists because no computer can actually emulate all programs that run on an universal turing machine due to lack of memory. If you believe the Mandlebrot set, or the infinite digits of Pi exist, then so to do Turing machines with inexhaustible memory. But let's say we mean except for memory and unlimited accuracy. This would mean that we are computers, but not that we are ONLY computers. Is this like saying our brains are atoms, but we are more than atoms? I can agree with that, our minds transcend the simple description of interacting particles. But if atoms can serve as a platform for minds and consciousness, is there a reason that computers cannot? Short of adopting some kind of dualism (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism , or the idea that God has to put a soul into a computer to make it alive/conscious), I don't see how atoms can serve as this platform but computers could not, since computers seem capable of emulating everything atoms do. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: since this is all that is required for my argument. I (if I take myself to be human) can't be contained in that definition because a human is not a computer according to the everyday definition. A human may be something a computer can perfectly emulate, therefore a human could exist with the definition of a computer. Computers are very powerful and flexible in what they can do. That is an assumption that I don't buy into at all. Have you ever done any computer programming? If you have, you might realize that the possibilities for programs goes beyond your imagination. Yes, I studied computer science for one semester, so I have programmed a fair amount. Again, you are misinterpreting me. Of course programs go beyond our imagination. Can you imagine the mandel brot set without computing it on a computer? It is very hard. I never said that they can't. I just said that they lack some capability that we have. For example they can't fundamentally decide which programs to use and which not and which axioms to use (they can do this relatively, though). There is no computational way of determining that. There are experimental ways, which is how we determined which axioms to use. There is no reason a computer could not use these same approaches. For example how can you computationally determine whether to use the axiom true=not(false) or use the axiom true=not(true)? Some of them are more useful, or lead to theories of a richer complexity. If the computer program had a concept for desiring novelty/surprises, it would surely find some axiomatic systems more interesting than others. Or how can you determine whether to program a particular program or not? To do this computationally you would need another program, but how do you determine if this is the correct one? How do we? Jason Resch-2 wrote: You may not buy into this, but the overwhelming majority of computer scientists do. If you have no opinion one way or the other, and don't wish to investigate it yourself, for what reason do you reject the mainstream expert opinion? That's very simple. Computer science has only something to say about computers, so an expert on that can't be trusted on issues going beyond that (what is beyond computation). To the contrary they are very likely biased towards a computational approach by their profession. There is probably some of that, yes. Or to put it more rudely: Many computer scientists are deluded by their own dogma of computation being all important (or even real beyond an idea), just like many priests are deluded about God being all important (or even real beyond an idea). Inside their respective system, there is nothing to suggest the contrary, and most are unwilling to step out of them system because they want to be comfortable and not be rejected by their peers. Most consciousness researchers (who often are not computer scientists) subscribe to the functionalist/computational theory of mind. It is better than dualism, because it does not require violations of physics for a mental event to cause a physical event. It is better than epihenominalism, because it
Re: A remark on Richard's paper
Dear Richard, Your paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf is very interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular automaton theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d manifold would be a single fixed structure that, while conceivably capable of running the computations and/or implementing the Peano arithmetic, has a problem with the role of time in it. You might have a solution to this problem that I see that I did not deduce as I read your paper. How do you define time for your model? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want into this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any possible way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning. If you see a particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty clearly be interpreted as addition, for example. A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates symbols (that is the definition of a computer), I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer. Some have tried to define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than a game of symbol manipulation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics) ). But if mathematics can be viewed as nothing but symbol manipulation, and everything can be described in terms of mathematics, then what is not symbol manipulation? and symbols need a meaning outside of them to make sense. The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine which processes it. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write a program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD doesn't do. But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the UD. First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation. Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD. The UD itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that dilineates on program from the others. Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory space. This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it just uses its own memory space. Is your computer only running one program right now or many? Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program. No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation. You can only interpret entities into it. Why do I have to? As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be conscious? Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only contains symbols that are manipulated in a particular way. You forgot the processes, which are interpreting those symbols. The spikes of neural activity in your optic nerve are just symbols, but given an interpreter (your visual cortex and brain) those symbols become quite meaningful. The definitions of the UD or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't contain a reference to entities. The definition of this universe doesn't contain a reference to human beings either. So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination. I think I would still be able to experience meaning even if no one was looking at me. It is like 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about putting an apple into a bowl with an apple already in it. You can interpret that into it, and its not necessarily wrong, but it is not part of the equation. Similarily you can interpret entities into the UD and that is also not necessarily wrong, put the entities then still are not part of the UD. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: It is similar to claiming that it is hard to find a text that is not derived from monkeys bashing on type writers, just because they will produce every possible output some day. Intelligence is not simply blindly going through every possibility but also encompasses organizing them meaningfully and selecting specific ones and producing them in a certain order and producing them within a certain time limit. And there are processes that do this, within the UD. No. It can't select a computation because it includes all computations. To select a computation you must exclude some compuations, and the UD can't do that (since it is precisely going through all computations) So it selects them all, and excludes nothing. How is this a meaningful limitation? If you look at two entities, X, and Y. X can do everything Y can do, and more, but Y can only do a subset of what X does. You say that X is more limited than Y because it can't do only what Y does. That's absolutely correct. A human that (tries to) eat all of the food in the supermarket is more limited (and dumb) than a human that just does a subset of this, picking the food it wants and eat that. The former human is dead, or at least will have to visit the hospital, the latter is well and alive. Less is indeed more, in many
Re: A remark on Richard's paper
Stephan, Thanks for the compliment. I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chalmers and S_T Yau. Time inflates along with 3 dimensions in the big bang. Leaving 6 dimensions behind to compactify or curl up into tiny balls 1000 planck lengths across each with 500 holes. So each 6-d ball is a fixed structure and 10^90/cc of them fill the universe. Hardly a single structure. Well I really cannot say how time works. Don't know if it is linear,or nonlinear, if it inflates or deflates. Most of string theory appears to threat time as part of a 4-D background spacetime. The paper has little to do with time. Perhaps it is required for Pratt theory? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Dear Richard, Your paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf is very interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular automaton theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d manifold would be a single fixed structure that, while conceivably capable of running the computations and/or implementing the Peano arithmetic, has a problem with the role of time in it. You might have a solution to this problem that I see that I did not deduce as I read your paper. How do you define time for your model? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Honestly I do not find the Gödel theorem a limitation for computers. I think that Penrose and other did a right translation from the Gódel theorem to a problem of a Turing machine,. But this translation can be done in a different way. It is possible to design a program that modify itself by adding new axioms, included the diagonalizations, so that the number of axioms can grow for any need. This is rutinely done for equivalent problems in rule-based expert systems or in ordinary interpreters (aided by humans) in complex domains. But reduced to integer aritmetics, A turing machine that implements a math proof system at the deep level, that is, in an interpreter where new axioms can be automatically added trough diagonalizations, may expand the set of know deductions by incorporating new axioms trough diagonalization. This is not prohibited by the Gódel theorem. What is prohibited is to know all true statements on this domain. But this also apply to humans. So a computer can realize that a new axiom is absent in his initial set and to add it, Just like humans. I do not see in this a limitation for human free will. I wrote about this before. The notion of free will based on the deterministc nature of the phisics or computation is a degenerated, false problem which is an obsession of the Positivists. Look form degenerated and Positivism to find mi opinion about that in this list if you are interested. 2012/8/24 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want into this sentence... or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. A sentence (any string of information) can be interpreted in any possible way, but a computation defines/creates its own meaning. If you see a particular step in an algorithm adds two numbers, it can pretty clearly be interpreted as addition, for example. A computation can't define its own meaning, since it only manipulates symbols (that is the definition of a computer), I think it is a rather poor definition of a computer. Some have tried to define the entire field of mathematics as nothing more than a game of symbol manipulation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(mathematics) ). But if mathematics can be viewed as nothing but symbol manipulation, and everything can be described in terms of mathematics, then what is not symbol manipulation? and symbols need a meaning outside of them to make sense. The meaning of a symbol derives from the context of the machine which processes it. Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Also, the universal dovetailer can't select a computation. So if I write a program that computes something specific, I do something that the UD doesn't do. But you, as the one writing a specific program, is an element of the UD. First, you presuppose that I am a contained in a computation. Secondly, that's not true. There are no specific programs in the UD. The UD itself is a specifc program and in it there is nothing in it that dilineates on program from the others. Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory space. This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it just uses its own memory space. Is your computer only running one program right now or many? Jason Resch-2 wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: The UD contains an entity who believes it writes a single program. No! The UD doesn't contain entities at all. It is just a computation. You can only interpret entities into it. Why do I have to? As Bruno often asks, does anyone have to watch your brain through an MRI and interpret what it is doing for you to be conscious? Because there ARE no entities in the UD per its definition. It only contains symbols that are manipulated in a particular way. You forgot the processes, which are interpreting those symbols. The spikes of neural activity in your optic nerve are just symbols, but given an interpreter (your visual cortex and brain) those symbols become quite meaningful. The definitions of the UD or a universal turing machine or of computers in general don't contain a reference to entities. The definition of this universe doesn't contain a reference to human beings either. So you can only add that to its working in your own imagination. I think I would still be able to experience meaning even if no one was looking at me. It is like 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about putting an apple into a bowl with an apple already in it. You can interpret that into it, and its not necessarily wrong, but it is not part of the equation. Similarily you can interpret entities into the UD and that is also not
Re: A remark on Richard's paper
A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says: 'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be self-referential proof by contradiction, except to mention that Penrose in Shadows of the Mind(1994), as confirmed by David Chalmers(1995), arrived at a seemingly valid 7 step proof that human “reasoning powers cannot be captured by any formal system”.' If you actually read Chalmers' paper at http://web.archive.org/web/20090204164739/http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-09-chalmers.htmlhe definitely does *not* confirm Penrose's argument! He says in the paper that Penrose has two basic arguments for his conclusions about consciousness, and at the end of the section titled the first argument he concludes that the first one fails: 2.16 It is section 3.3 that carries the burden of this strand of Penrose's argument, but unfortunately it seems to be one of the least convincing sections in the book. By his assumption that the relevant class of computational systems are all straightforward axiom-and-rules system, Penrose is not taking AI seriously, and certainly is not doing enough to establish his conclusion that physics is uncomputable. I conclude that none of Penrose's argument up to this point put a dent in the natural AI position: that our reasoning powers may be captured by a sound formal system F, where we cannot determine that F is sound. Then when dealing with Penrose's second argument, he says that Penrose draws the wrong conclusions; where Penrose concludes that our reasoning cannot be the product of any formal system, Chalmers concludes that the actual issue is that we cannot be 100% sure our reasoning is sound (which I understand to mean we can never be 100% sure that we have not made a false conclusion about whether all the propositions we have proved true or false actually have that truth-value in true arithmetic): 3.12 We can see, then, that the assumption that we know we are sound leads to a contradiction. One might try to pin the blame on one of the other assumptions, but all these seem quite straightforward. Indeed, these include the sort of implicit assumptions that Penrose appeals to in his arguments all the time. Indeed, one could make the case that all of premises (1)-(4) are implicitly appealed to in Penrose's main argument. For the purposes of the argument against Penrose, it does not really matter which we blame for the contradiction, but I think it is fairly clear that it is the assumption that the system knows that it is sound that causes most of the damage. It is this assumption, then, that should be withdrawn. 3.13 Penrose has therefore pointed to a false culprit. When the contradiction is reached, he pins the blame on the assumption that our reasoning powers are captured by a formal system F. But the argument above shows that this assumption is inessential in reaching the contradiction: A similar contradiction, via a not dissimilar sort of argument, can be reached even in the absence of that assumption. It follows that the responsibility for the contradiction lies elsewhere than in the assumption of computability. It is the assumption about knowledge of soundness that should be withdrawn. 3.14 Still, Penrose's argument has succeeded in clarifying some issues. In a sense, it shows where the deepest flaw in Gödelian arguments lies. One might have thought that the deepest flaw lay in the unjustified claim that one can see the soundness of certain formal systems that underlie our own reasoning. But in fact, if the above analysis is correct, the deepest flaw lies in the assumption that we know that we are sound. All Gödelian arguments appeal to this premise somewhere, but in fact the premise generates a contradiction. Perhaps we are sound, but we cannot know unassailably that we are sound. So it seems Chalmers would have no problem with the natural AI position he discussed earlier, that our reasoning could be adequately captured by a computer simulation that did not come to its top-level conclusions about mathematics via a strict axiom/proof method involving the mathematical questions themselves, but rather by some underlying fallible structure like a neural network. The bottom-level behavior of the simulated neurons themselves would be deducible given the initial state of the system using the axiom/proof method, but that doesn't mean the system as a whole might not make errors in mathematical calculations; see Douglas Hofstadter's discussion of this issue starting on p. 571 of Godel Escher Bach, the section titled Irrational and Rational Can Coexist on Different Levels, where he writes: Another way to gain perspective on this is to remember that a brain, too, is a collection of faultlessly functioning element-neurons. Whenever a neuron's threshold is surpassed by the sum of the incoming signals, BANG!-it fires. It never happens that a neuron forgets its arithmetical
