One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are not destroyed. Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall in slightly different places; How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would have the same charge and mass. But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, you erase it. 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.
Why Peirce ? Peirce deals with change.
Why Peirce ? Peirce's philosophy is a philosophy of science, a fact that should meet with agreement here. As such, his philosophy to some extent includes change. So far, we have been referring to the necessary (Platonia) and the contingent (actuality). The necessary is timeless and always true, the contingent is imperfect. But what is the relationship between these two worlds ? The world of contingency down here changes with time, but Leibniz and Plato have no way to describe such changes explicitly. With Plato there are no changes except ontologically, and with Leibniz the changes are dealt with using a pre-established harmony. Peirce deals with change through his concept of tychism, the evolution of all contingent things toward the necessary, his three categories then becoming I the possible, II the actual, and III the necessary. Thus the world of contingency is at least ultimately oriented toward Platonia. Except for life itself, this obviously violates the second law, so I need to research Peirce a little more. Perhaps this is is why he proposes that the laws of physics change with time perhaps to accord with this. Certainly life does improve through evolution. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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.
comp : theory vs actuality II
I accidentally sent the email below out too early. I see what you mean about the need for plum orchards etc in the brain. I was simply assuming that comp could do whatever is needed and didn't think through what I had said. Obviously an over-assumption. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/2/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-02, 06:49:00 Subject: comp : theory vs actuality Hi Craig Weinberg Good points, and I very much welcome your sharing of information and discussion on Peirce, particularly: 1) Peirce said Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign. Fuuny you mention that, because last night I realized the same thing. This is a serious problem for comp, because IMHO without a living mind to interpret its calculations, the calculations are stillborn. More precisely, a computer can only know things by description (3p), not by acquaintance (1p), a computer having no 1p. Which means that a computer only has theoretical access to Platonia (3p), not actual access (1p), so although it can calculate numbers, it cannot do anything there with those numbers. On the other hand, semiotics has at least a theoretical 1p since it has an interprant. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/2/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-01, 16:29:07 Subject: Re: Outline for a Semiotic Computationalism I'm a fan of semiotics as well. Not to be the nit-picking guy but, since we are talking about symbols and clear communication, it's not technically true to say that Peirce developed semiotics or that Saussure's work is called semiosis. I think of semoisis as referring to the actual process by which meaning is encoded and decoded in symbolic forms, while semiotics refers to the study of that process and its larger issues of interpreters, referents, and descriptions. According to the wiki, Peirce actually introduced the word semiosis himself, and Locke came brought the word semiotics into use before Peirce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiosis http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semiotics I agree that semiotics provides a good framework - a better framework than math or physics in my opinion with which to approach consciousness. The problem is that it also fails to 'go all the way' and account for the fundamental capacities which signs supervene on - namely consciousness itself. Peirce said Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign. Properly understood, this sentence reveals why no symbol, including those generated by processes in the brain or logical functions in a program can possibly be seen as a root source of consciousness. The capacity to interpret signs must prefigure semiotics, as it must prefigure Turing machines, arithmetic operators and numbers, physical forces and fields, quantum states and dynamics, etc. you said Comp could in fact provide such sensory signals if the numbers of comp are converted to analog form signals and interfaced to the brain. Presumably this is how digital implants work. If this were true, then there would have to be miniature plum orchards and baseball stadiums inside of the brain. At some point there would have to be a final decoding which could only be into the form of qualia that we actually experience. Otherwise there is metaphysical never-never land where qualia comes from. Since we don't see any constructed qualia in the tissue of the brain - and again it's more than digital patterns being converted to analog signals, because odors and flavors don't work that way. There is no algebraic transformation or topology which inherently has an odor or a feeling. We know this because we can't put an odor on a computer screen, no matter how precisely the information associated with that aromatic experience is modeled. There is an insurmountable gulf between all mathematical models and all direct experiences. As Peirce says, signs must be interpreted as such, which means intentionality and awareness - whether it is on the human individual level or the level of a cell, molecule, machine, etc. No matter what it is, it has to have the capacity to participate in the world. Digital implants work like a cane works for a blind person. They are prosthetic extensions through which the nervous system can adapt and utilize the foreign device as an antenna. There is a limit though, just as eyeglasses won't help someone who is completely blind, the structures of the brain through which support the experience of the individual person as a whole can't be replaced without killing off the person. I'm open to other arguments, but none that I have heard so far impress me as being plausible. Craig On Saturday, December 1, 2012 10:07:06 AM UTC-5, rclough
Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Roger, Isn't your god an observer? Richard On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are not destroyed. Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall in slightly different places; How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would have the same charge and mass. But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, you erase it. 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. -- 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: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 02 Dec 2012, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or the truth of necessary logic. True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by the rules of inference. This makes no sense. You confuse the propositional constant T, with the semantical notion of truth. The first is expressible/definable formally (indeed by T, or by 0 = 0 in arithmetic), the second is not (Tarski theorem). On the contrary, I'm pointing out that they are NOT the same thing. Apology, but it was not clear. Bruno Brent When we say that truth is preserved by the rules of inference, we are concerned with the second notion. In applications it is interpreted as if it were the correspondence meaning of 'true'. Like in arithmetic. Truth of ExP(x) means that it exists a n such that P(n), at the metalevel, which is the bare level in logic (that explains many confusion). But like all applications of mathematics, it may be only approximate. Yes, but for arithmetic it is pretty clear, as we share our intuition on the so-called standard finite numbers. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5431 - Release Date: 12/01/12 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Climate change
On 02 Dec 2012, at 19:56, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/2/2012 1:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 12:56 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/1/2012 11:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2012 6:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/1/2012 9:18 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/1/2012 5:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/1/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:03:35AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Be that as it may, even a study over the last millenium would be based on inadequate data compared to the data from the Vostok ice cores. The hockey stick data used by Gore and others could possibly be a real change, but it pales in comparison: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ so there is some undetermined cause of these cycles which occurred long before the automobile or industrial production. There is a theory based on earth's inclination or wobble called the mikhailovich cycle, but the periodicity, although close, doesn't match. As I understand it, state of the art understanding has it that the Milankovitch cycle is the initial cause of the cyclic variation in glaciation, is not sufficient in itself to generate the temperature variation. Rather, various positive feedbacks amplify the Milankovitch cycle into the large glaciation cycle. That would also explain why the period doesn't match exactly. My own belief (not original) is that the CO2 is expelled and redissolved from the vast reservoir of the oceans as temperature varies. C)2 is much more soluble in cold water. Yes, that would another +ve feedback. But a rather minor one, I suspect. A 2-5 degree temperature variation out of 300 degrees (room temperature on the Kelvin scale) doesn't sound like it would change CO2 solubility by much. By contrast, we've seen a near doubling of CO2 concentration since preindustrial times, which doesn't seem explainable from ocean temperature trends. So why is the arctic ice melting but in contrast only melting slightly at the southern pole ? Well, it is melting a bit more than slightly in Antarctica, mostly in the Antarctic peninsula. Many of the glaciers in West Antarctica have accelerated, just as they have in Greenland. By contrast, East Antarctica seems stable, which is just as well for us humans. In the arctic, there is a strong +ve feedback from the fact that open ocean has lower albedo, so absorbs more sunlight during summer, heating the ocean, and preventing buildup of ice during Winter. By contrast at the South Pole, the ice sheet is some 3km thick - it will be a long time indeed before the ice has melted enough for the albedo effect to start accelerating things. It may be related to El Nino and La Ninja, which are unevenly distributed. I believe El Nino (which is associagted with warming and is now present) is the cause of north pole melting. El Nino is associated with warming of the ocean off South America, and corresponding cooling of the Coral sea. It causes droughts in Eastern Australia, and rain in Chile. La Nina is the reverse situation. It causes a lot of rain here in Australia, and somewhat cooler weather. I thought we were still in La Nina (we had a lot of rain last year), but I see the current value of the ENSO index is neutral - neither El Nino nor La Nina. I would assume that polar warming would be more influenced by the Artic Oscillation than ENSO. I'm not sure how connected the AO is to the ENSO. But, I don't claim any expertise in these matters :) Scientists Peg Sea Level Rise from Polar Ice Melt at 11.1 Millimeters Since 1992. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-measure-sea-rise-from-po What is the panic about? a) Polar ice melt is not the only source of sea level rise. Thermal expansion is a big contributor. b) Every reasonable projection of polar melting indicates it will be accelerating, melting at an increasing, not a constant, rate. c) Sea level has gone up 200mm since 1900. Total rise is projected to be around 0.8m by 2100 AND STILL RISING FAST. If the Antarctic ice sheet melts sea level will rise about 60m. But even one meter makes a big difference to low coastal regions in a storm, e.g. New York, New Orleans, Bangladesh,... d) Weather patterns are likely to change much faster than flora, fauna, and maybe even people can adapt, resulting in worldwide crop failures and famine. Brent -- The sky is falling, the sky is falling! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny Mockery doesn't change the facts. Brent -- Hi Brent, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.abstract We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea- level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea
Re: Climate change
On 12/3/2012 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So our existence at the current level is bad' and we are to revert back to some primitive non-tech version and be happy. OK. Proceed there without me. I am not interested in telling you how to live your life, just respect my basic human rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. The climate alarmist are busy inventing new reasons that I cannot have even these and you seem to be OK with that! Why? I am interested in advancing technology and understanding such that, maybe, this constant panic and obsessive compulsive need to control everything is mitigated. Why can't people just be happy and live their lives w/o having to constantly invent good reasons to get into everyone's business??? IMHO, all this climate change stuff is just a reharsh of Malthusian thinking and the very idea of criminalizing disenting opinions, well... What a wonderful way to impose tyranny! You might be right, I am not sure. Then, the fear sellers did not need the climate change for imposing tyranny: food and drug works already very well. (Cf Obama and the NDAA). And they might be related, as Henry Ford said already in before 1930, --why use petrol and steel for doing car, when we can build them entirely using Hemp, which can be renewed each year?. The possible climate change might be a consequence of the lies on paper, steel, medication, oil, etc. The deeper problem might be education, which get worst more or less since Nixon, almost everywhere. People are not encouraged to think by themselves. they still need leader, hero, etc. It is old social mammal genes in play. We are apes with atomic bomb, which confuse p - q and q - p, all the time. As long as cannabis is illegal, you can be sure that politics is biased in the favor of lying minorities. Corporatist club are NOT person, contrary to what Romney said recently. We should implement differently politics, so that we can separate it from special interests. Not an easy task. May be we should vote for programs, and politicians should be anonymous citizen doing some social service for a fixed period. Something like that. Bruno Dear Bruno, FYI: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602160845.htm -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Semantic vs logical truth
Hi meekerdb 1p is not a fiction. Your 1p is what is reading this page. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-02, 18:04:38 Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either. Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that p describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine. That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to I *believe* I am south of my landing point. One could include such second-level states (which one might want to communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another first-level state. Right? 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: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. The supreme monad sees all clearly. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. Roger, Isn't your god an observer? Richard On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are not destroyed. Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall in slightly different places; How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would have the same charge and mass. But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, you erase it. 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. -- 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: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
RC, So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. RR On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. The supreme monad sees all clearly. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. Roger, Isn't your god an observer? Richard On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are not destroyed. Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall in slightly different places; How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would have the same charge and mass. But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, you erase it. 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. -- 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: Against Mechanism
On 02 Dec 2012, at 21:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 10:43 AM, John Clark wrote: Now it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. You don't need to destroy the electrons you just have to arrange things so that the effect the 2 electrons have on their universes is indistinguishable, then the 2 universes will merge back together and interference is produced. If you fire electrons at 2 slits and have sensitive detectors mounted near one slit so a record is made of which slit each of the electrons went through then the universe splits into two each time a electron is fired and it does not recombine because the 2 universes are different, one has a record of the electron going through slot X and the other has a record of it going through slot Y, and so no interference is produced on the photographic plate. But if there is no detector near a slit or no record kept of which slit it went through then the universe still splits when it goes through the 2 slits because the 2 are different, the electrons are on slightly different trajectories, but when the electrons hit the metal wall there is no longer any detectable difference between the 2 universes and so they merge back together, but there is still evidence that the electron went through slot X only and evidence it went through slot Y only and this produces the interference effect. the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would have the same charge and mass. But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. Yes. But also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. Yes, if one electron is absorbed into the electron sea of a metal and the other electron is not then obviously the 2 universes remain different and so do not recombine and so no interference is found. To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, you erase it. I don't quite know how a lens enters into this but yes, if the which-way information is not recorded or the record erased by whatever means then the 2 universes are identical and merge and a interference pattern is seen. Apparently I have not explained it in sufficient detail; I thought you probably knew the experiment and my rough description would be enough to remind you. It's generally referred to as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and it has actually been performed with photons rather than electrons: http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf There's also a web version by the authors with more pictures and explanation and less math: http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm . But my point is that you're wrong when you write, ...if the which-way information is not recorded or the record erased by whatever means then the 2 universes are identical and merge and a interference pattern is seen. These two cases are different. If the information is not recorded, e.g. the photon is absorbed or is just let travel off to infinity the interference is lost. It is only when, by interposing the lens in the right place, the information is literally erased and the interference pattern is seen. very good point. And it has to be like that in theories without collapse, keeping exact the linearity of both the wave evolution, and the tensor product for many bodies. Bruno 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Did you mean I saw W or M, which is indeed confirmed by the two copies? Or I saw W or I saw M, which again is confirmed by the two copies? I meant that a observer who did not want to play games and honestly wanted to convey the maximum amount of information would NOT say from a first person view I saw W or M. And I meant that me would say I saw M AND me would say I saw W. They are both me in the 3-view And so obviously they are both me in the 1-view. and only one of them can be me in the 1-view. Me disagrees with Bruno Marchal about that, Bruno Marchal should just ask me and that will prove that John Clark was correct. and don't give me this first party third party crap, ANYBODY that exists after that button is pushed sees BOTH of them as Bruno Marchal from the first, second third or any other point of view you care to name. No YES!! the one in W does not see the one in M as being himself in the first person sense If they are identical the one in W does not even know if he's in W or M, and the same is true of the one in M. he just agree that the other is as much the H-man s himself Yes. but now they have differentiated. Yes but not at the instant of duplication, at the instant one sees something the other does not. Only in the 3-sense [...] Only in the 3-sense? ONLY?! I repeat my request yet again, without invoking the supernatural please give a example of 2 beings identical from the 3p but not from the 1p. If 2 things are me in the 3p then unless there are mystical supernatural entities at work they are certainly identical in the 1p Not at all, This gets to the very heart of the matter and I could not disagree with you more. If correct why can't a example be provided? they are both me in the comp sense. Then what are we arguing about? We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man can pretend rightly that they are the H-man, Yes. but their first person view have differentiated Only when one sees something the other does not, as long as they stay in those identical boxes they have not differentiated no matter how far apart the boxes are and there is only one conscious being. They feel different. If they have different memories of what happened after the duplication then yes, otherwise no. you can't use Leibniz rule for identity. I duplicate you. You and your identical copy are in 2 identical sealed boxes. I instantaneously exchange the position of of you and the copy. A third person cannot tell that anything has happened. You can not tell that anything has happened. The copy can not tell that anything has happened. So unless you can find a difference that is neither objective nor subjective then there is no difference between you and the copy. and if Bruno Marchal can dream up some other pee they're identical from that viewpoint too. Then if I give a pinch to the M-man Then the 2 are no longer identical and all bets are off. the W-man will get angry, Only if you pinch the W-man too. showing that your view entails action at a distance, telepathy, or some magic of that kind. Don't be ridiculous. you forget the point that the question is asked to the h-man, about his subjective future. And you forget that the H-man's future bifurcates so to expect a single answer is nuts. And I don't see how predictions of a subjective future is of any value in a thought experiment. I make predictions of what my subjective future will be like all the time and I turn out to be right about as often as I'm wrong. You have to take into account all copies, to get the statistics right Well then take all the copies into account and get the statistics right and tell the world the definite unambiguous result the experiment is claimed to produce! Did you end up seeing Washington or did you end up seeing Moscow? The point is, for the H-man, assuming comp, that he will survive one and entire in both city, but feel to be one city, and that he cannot predict which one. John Clark is not interested in predictions nor in theories, John Clark just wants a report on how a experiment turned out. Under some interpretations of quantum mechanics the wave function collapses and in other interpretations it does not, but regardless of which philosophical interpretation is true quantum mechanics makes the same clear statistical prediction of what will be observed. But without collapse QM is entirely deterministic, Yes. and the probabilities bears only on first person point of view Yes, and until about 80 years ago people thought that all probabilities always bear only on the first person point of view; if Everett is proven correct then people will think that way again. And I have nothing against first person subjective probabilities as long as its clear who that first person is. Bruno Marchal is unable to give a straight answer to the simple question did you end
Re: Semantic vs logical truth
On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either. Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that p describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine. No, p is for some statement at the base level, like 1+1 = 2. That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to I *believe* I am south of my landing point. Then Mars Rover is not Löbian. But I am not even sure that Mars Rover is Turing universal, or that it exploits its Turing universality. But PA and ZF can represent I believe. So we can study the logic of a new 'knowledge operator defined (at the meta level, for each arithmetical proposition) by Bp p. For example if p is 1+1=2, it is Believe(1+1=2) 1+1 = 2. We cannot define such operator in arithmetic. We would need something like Believe(1+1=2) True(1+1 = 2), but True, in general cannot defined in arithmetic. Yet, we can metadefine it and study its logic, which obeys a soprt of temporal intuionistic logic (interpreting the S4Grz logic obtained). One could include such second-level states (which one might want to communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another first-level state. Right? Not sure I see what you mean. The meta, available by the machine is in the I believe. It is the 3-I. The presentation of myself to myself. The 1-I will be the non definable operator above. We connect the believer to the truth. It is easy to do for the sound correct machine. Bruno 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Larger picture (was Climate change)
On 12/3/2012 9:11 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Stephen, Your point in context of climate change with another reefer madness study permeated by various formulations of may is what? Me too, I see all these folks from the sixties and seventies, that have kept their smoking habits go psychotic, become dope fiends full of abnormalities and sub threshold psychotic behavior like the Manson family everywhere. If you want to defend this line start another thread. Hi Mark, Maybe you can help me figure out which scientific study is cause for concern and which is not. They are all loaded up with maybe and might, etc. That is the nature of science, there is no 100% certainty. My point is that the climate change studies are believed in the worse case scenario and parroted ab nauseum and yet a well documented study (and there are many) on possible adverse effects of long-term cannabis use is dismissed as a reefer madness study. Can you see the larger pattern? Bruno is talking about hemp as an energy resource. What is the BTU per unit volume of hemp, what is the production and infrastructure cost and /_*how do those compare to alternative*_/_/*s*/_? How many spin-offs may occur as market forces push for increasing efficiency in a hemp energy infrastructure as compared to alternatives? One thing that I have noticed is that a sucessful technology and methodology tends to be one that has many spin offs that are themselves successful technologies and methods. Compare for example the spin-offs of fission reactors based on Uranium vs reactors based on thorium. How is your quoted study relevant? It was an attempt to try to communicate a larger point. Mark -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Semantic vs logical truth
On 12/3/2012 4:42 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb 1p is not a fiction. Your 1p is what is reading this page. Where did I refer to 1p? Where did I call anything a 'fiction' Are you replying to the voices in your head? Don't put words in my mouth. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-02, 18:04:38 *Subject:* Re: Semantic vs logical truth On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either. Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that p describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine. That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to I *believe* I am south of my landing point. One could include such second-level states (which one might want to communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another first-level state. Right? Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5433 - Release Date: 12/02/12 -- 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: Climate change
On 12/3/2012 4:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You might be right, I am not sure. Then, the fear sellers did not need the climate change for imposing tyranny: food and drug works already very well. (Cf Obama and the NDAA). And they might be related, as Henry Ford said already in before 1930, --why use petrol and steel for doing car, when we can build them entirely using Hemp, which can be renewed each year?. The possible climate change might be a consequence of the lies on paper, steel, medication, oil, etc. The deeper problem might be education, which get worst more or less since Nixon, almost everywhere. People are not encouraged to think by themselves. they still need leader, hero, etc. It is old social mammal genes in play. We are apes with atomic bomb, which confuse p - q and q - p, all the time. As long as cannabis is illegal, you can be sure that politics is biased in the favor of lying minorities. So do you conclude from the recent legalization of Marijuana in three U.S. states and even it's commercial production in Colorado that the bias has shifted? 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: Against Mechanism
On 12/3/2012 8:46 AM, John Clark wrote: If the information is not recorded, e.g. the photon is absorbed or is just let travel off to infinity the interference is lost. That is incorrect, you've got it backward. If the information on what slit the electron went through is not recorded, that is to say if you DON'T know what slit the electron went through then you DO see a interference pattern. That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record the which-way the interference is lost. But *also* if you don't record it, if nobody records it and the photon just flies off to infinity or is absorbed in the wall, the interference is lost. The interference pattern occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased*, e.g. by placing the lens so that which ever slit it went through it is focused to the same point. The important difference is that consciousness or human knowledge does not have some extra-physical effect in destroying the interference pattern. The interference pattern is lost just because the information is out there; whether anybody knows about it or records it or not. 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: Semantic vs logical truth
On 12/3/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Dec 2012, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 7:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The 1p truth of the machine is not coded in the machine. Some actual machines knows already that, and can justified that If there are machine (and from outside we can know this to correct) then the 1p-truth is not codable. The 1p truth are more related to the relation between belief and reality (not necessarily physical reality, except for observation and sensation). Even the simple, and apparently formal Bp p is NOT codable. Most truth about machine, including some that they can know, are not codable. Many things true about us is not codable either. Let me see if I understand that. I think you are saying that p, i.e. that p describes a fact about the world, a meta-level above the coding of a machine. No, p is for some statement at the base level, like 1+1 = 2. Yes, I understand that. I didn't express myself clearly. p is a 0-level statement. That p (i.e. that p is true, that p describes a fact) is a 1-level statement. That the Mars Rover believes it is south of it's landing point is implicit in its state and might be inferred from its behavior, but there is no part of the state corresponding to I *believe* I am south of my landing point. Then Mars Rover is not Löbian. But I am not even sure that Mars Rover is Turing universal, or that it exploits its Turing universality. Well not the current Mars Rover, but a Mars Rover could be, it's just a matter of program. So the Rover could not only encode p, also encode that it believed p. But PA and ZF can represent I believe. So we can study the logic of a new 'knowledge operator defined (at the meta level, for each arithmetical proposition) by Bp p. For example if p is 1+1=2, it is Believe(1+1=2) 1+1 = 2. I don't understand the significance of the unpaired quote marks? We cannot define such operator in arithmetic. We would need something like Believe(1+1=2) True(1+1 = 2), but True, in general cannot defined in arithmetic. Yet, we can metadefine it and study its logic, which obeys a soprt of temporal intuionistic logic (interpreting the S4Grz logic obtained). One could include such second-level states (which one might want to communicate to Pasadena) but then that state would be just another first-level state. Right? Not sure I see what you mean. The meta, available by the machine is in the I believe. It is the 3-I. The presentation of myself to myself. The 1-I will be the non definable operator above. We connect the believer to the truth. It is easy to do for the sound correct machine. What I mean is that if you programmed the Rover to be Lobian and it not only thought p but also though Bp, both of those would be just be similar physical states within its computer memory - their hierarchical relation would just be that encoded in the Lobian program. So a physical error in the computer could change Bp to ~Bp, yet this would have no effect on the performance of the Rover except in reporting what it believed. 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: Larger picture (was Climate change)
On 12/3/2012 11:00 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Maybe you can help me figure out which scientific study is cause for concern and which is not. They are all loaded up with maybe and might, etc. That is the nature of science, In the case of climate change there is a big uncertainty which is unrelated to the science. Any projection must consider what *people* will do. That's why the IPCC labels their projections by 'scenarios'. Those scenarios correspond to different projected human actions; everything from stop all fossil fuel consumption to continue to increase it at 3%/year. there is no 100% certainty. My point is that the climate change studies are believed in the worse case scenario and parroted ab nauseum On the contrary, the IPCC has been very conservative in its projections, which is why arctic ice floes are melting *faster* than predicted and global temperature is tracking near the upper end of the business as usual scenario. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/04/05/the-ipcc-and-the-conservatism-of-consensus/ 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.
a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
Dear Roger and Friends, You might find this paper of some interest: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7188 Leibniz's Laws of Continuity and Homogeneity Mikhail G. Katz, David Sherry (Submitted on 30 Nov 2012) We explore Leibniz's understanding of the differential calculus, and argue that his methods were more coherent than is generally recognized. The foundations of the historical infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz have been a target of numerous criticisms. Some of the critics believed to have found logical fallacies in its foundations. We present a detailed textual analysis of Leibniz's seminal text Cum Prodiisset, and argue that Leibniz's system for differential calculus was free of contradictions. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On 12/3/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: RC, So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. RR Dear Richard, How would one prove that all observations that that 1p has are mutually consistent? Unless you assume that the speed of light is infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute and uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all observed events, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that there cannot exist a singular 1p for the entire universe. It is for this reason that I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemology and am trying to develop an alternative. Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known to be the faithful logical structure representing a 'classical' universe' (not 'the universe'!), is found to be Satisfiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem In computer science, satisfiability (often written in all capitals or abbreviated SAT) is the problem of determining if the variables of a given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. Equally important is to determine whether no such assignments exist, which would imply that the function expressed by the formula is identically FALSE for all possible variable assignments. In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable; otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE, which make (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem, it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositional satisfiability. SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. That briefly means that there is no known algorithm that efficiently solves all instances of SAT, and it is generally believed (but not proven, see P versus NP problem) that no such algorithm can exist. Further, a wide range of other naturally occurring decision and optimization problems can be transformed into instances of SAT. It seems to me that the content of any 1p that is real must be at least a solution to a SAT problem. On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. The supreme monad sees all clearly. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Against Mechanism
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/3/2012 8:46 AM, John Clark wrote: If the information is not recorded, e.g. the photon is absorbed or is just let travel off to infinity the interference is lost. That is incorrect, you've got it backward. If the information on what slit the electron went through is not recorded, that is to say if you DON'T know what slit the electron went through then you DO see a interference pattern. That's where you're wrong; read the paper more carefully. If you record the which-way the interference is lost. But *also* if you don't record it, if nobody records it and the photon just flies off to infinity or is absorbed in the wall, the interference is lost. The interference pattern occurs *only* if the which way information is *erased*, e.g. by placing the lens so that which ever slit it went through it is focused to the same point. Brent, I'm sure you're aware of this, but perhaps others are not. Special lenses aren't usually needed, the two slits are merely placed close enough together that the natural spreading (diffraction) of light as it is forced through a small opening preserves the uncertainty of which path the photon took. This produces an interference pattern which is different from the expected (two overlapping diffraction patterns) so long as you don't do anything which in principle could determine which path was taken. Jason -- 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.
