Re: the curse of materialism
Book: What is your dangerous idea? / Edited by John Brockman / Article: Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein; Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin. / by Lee Smolin. / ===. / Page 115 / Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that natural selection could act not only on living things but on the properties defining the various species of elementary particles. / Page 117 / We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson: The only way to understand how one out of a vast number of choices was made, which favors improbable structure, is that is the result of evolution by natural selection. / Page 117 / Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature, and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution. / Page 118 / And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution yet in science, . . . / Lee Smolin. / http://www.leesmolin.com/ ==. Questions. 1 On which biological level is possible to use phrase: Darwinian natural selection, Darwin’s evolution ? 2 On which biological level does consciousness appear ?. ===. -- 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: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:36:34 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words. That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract computations. ? God, matter, consciousness are never computable. Where did I ever used God to designate computations. It seems to me that I insist a lot for not making that kind of spurious identification. I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, explaining why it makes God unnameable by machines. Computation are Sigma_1 Truth is Sigma_1 union Sigma_2 union Sigma_3 union Sigma_4 union ... You are a bit quick here, Brent, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Robot reading vs human reading
Hi Bruno Marchal I'm having trouble understanding you today. You say: Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Wikipedia says: Epistemology (i/??p?st?'m?l?d?i/ from Greek ?p?st?ľ? - episteme, meaning knowledge, understanding, and ? - logos, meaning study of) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.[1][2] It questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent a given subject or entity can be known. How can matter be epistemological ? It's just nondescriptive stuff. It cannot be knowledge, for knowledge can be defined as a true belief. But there's nothing to believe. It's just nondescriptive stuff. As to truth not being epistemological, consider this. If knowledge is a true belief, and epistemology provides you with knowledge, then that knowledge must be true by definition. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:38:01 Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through physiological explanations. And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with no account to the personality, memory, training, or linguistic knowledge of the reader. Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 07:01:56 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or
Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane, but what if he had none ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 10:40:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or indirectly. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Could a blind man stub his toe ? Anyone can stub their toe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- 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/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ. 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to investigation. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:07 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the field of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there.? And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions.? ? Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. ? ? ? What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. ? John k Clark ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's
Re: Re: the curse of materialism
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Shechtman also did work on quasicrystals at NIST, as a visiting scientist in the same materials division that I was in. I don't know why he got such a shoddy treatment-- whether it was political or antisemitic or professional jealousy. There was one world- famous physicist-metallurgist in our group that worked closely with him and might have shared the glory, but it would be unkind to that physicist to cast such aspersions. Actually, that can't be true, since, as you relate, Shechtman also had problems in Israel. - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-22, 02:46:12 Subject: Re: the curse of materialism Lecture : Scientific heresy. Nov 1, 2011 in Edinburgh. / By Matt Ridley / My topic today is scientific heresy. When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad? How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience? # Just this month Daniel Shechtman won the 2011 Nobel Prize in chemistry for quasi crystals, having spent much of his career being vilified and exiled as a crank ? was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying.? http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html ==. -- 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: the curse of materialism
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net CS Peirce believed that scientific laws were habits or laws developed by nature. So, according to CSP: Firstness= random Secondness = deterministic Thirdness= habit or law Rupert Sheldrake has similar ideas with his morphic resonances. As for myself, I'm too conservative to easily accept these views, but I am open to examining them. - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-22, 03:19:16 Subject: Re: the curse of materialism Book: What is your dangerous idea? / Edited by John Brockman / Article: Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein; Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin. / by Lee Smolin. / ===. / Page 115 / Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that natural selection could act not only on living things but on the properties defining the various species of elementary particles. / Page 117 / We physicists have now to understand Darwin? lesson: The only way to understand how one out of a vast number of choices was made, which favors improbable structure, is that is the result of evolution by natural selection. / Page 117 / Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature, and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution. / Page 118 / And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution yet in science, . . . / Lee Smolin. / http://www.leesmolin.com/ ==. Questions. 1 On which biological level is possible to use phrase: Darwinian natural selection, Darwin? evolution ? 2 On which biological level does consciousness appear ?. ===. -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark Einstein is as welcome to his beliefs as Christians are to theirs and as your scepticism is to you. None of this is provable, so please keep your beliefs to yourself. Roger, you have to admit this is a bit funny coming from you... - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-21, 12:32:38 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013� Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: What you say above reminded me of what Einstein said on religion: Let's look at a few more quotations about what Einstein had to say about religion: ** it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.� If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. **I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.� When Einstein moved to America his religious views, or rather lack of them, did not always go over well with the native hillbillies and he got some strange letters: Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from. I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land. We deeply regret that you made your statement in which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as one of the greatest sources of discord in America. � John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant. Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for mathematics puzzles me! -- 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.
Brain as Machine (was: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Do you disagree that swapping a carbon atom for another carbon atom in the brain will leave brain function and consciousness unchanged? I don't believe that we will necessarily know that our consciousness is changed. Even LSD takes a few micrograms to have an effect that we notice. Changing one person in the city of New York with another may not change the city in any appreciably obvious way, but it's a matter of scale and proportion, not functional sequestering. The field of nuclear medicine involves injecting radiolabeled chemicals into subjects and then scanning for them with radiosensitive equipment. This is how PET scanners work, for example. The idea is that if the injected chemical is similar enough to normal biological matter it will replace this matter without affecting function, including brain function and consciousness. You could say this is a practical application of the theory that consciousness is substrate-independent, verified thousands of times every day in clinical situations. That's because the radioactivity is mild. Heavy doses of gamma radiation are not without their effects on consciousness. Anything that you do on the nuclear level can potentially effect the chemical level, which can effect the biological level, etc. These levels have different qualities as well as quantitative scales so it is simplistic to approach it from a quantitative-only view. Awareness is qualities, not just quantities. Obviously, if the change you make to the brain changes its function it could also change consciousness. This is the functionalist position. You have claimed that this is wrong, and that no matter how closely a replacement brain part duplicates the function of the original there will be a change in consciousness, simply because it isn't the original. If this were so, you would expect a change in consciousness when atoms in the brain are replaced with different isotopes, even if the isotopes are not radioactive. And yet this is not what happens. The scientific explanation is that chemistry is for the most part unaffected by the number of neutrons in the nucleus, and that since the brain works by means of chemical reactions, brain function and hence consciousness are also unaffected. It's not that there is anything magically consciousness-preserving about switching isotopes, it's just that switching isotopes is an example of part replacement that makes no functional difference, like replacing a part in your car with a new part that is 0.001 mm bigger. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this. Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious. Where does provability by mathematical logic come in? I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief: [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p (for the rich machines). Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p). In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p - p) - []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious. Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said unconscious faith, I meant unconscious inference of something and the unconscious bears on inference, not on the content of the faith. or how does unconscious faith become conscious only to become partially obscured once again and in need of proof to restore it to consciousness? No need of proof as there is none. That consciousness comes, and quit is usual. You are quite conscious of driving when being a young driver, then most of the driving become unconscious when older ... until you get a problem with the car and are conscious again. Consciousness is related to focusing attention, notably. It seems like the forces which are shaping faith into these different qualities of consciousness are actually the more relevant agents. With comp, forces are a product of consciousness. What would be the reason for or method of bringing a machine's unconscious faith into a conscious experiential mode? The machine is conscious when she infer t and other G*\ G- propositions (true but non provable/believable). This confers to her an ability to evolve, to change her mind, to speed-up its computability abilities, to focuse attention, to differentiate on different consistent extensions, etc. Of course there a tuns of open problems. the advantage here is that we get physical consequences so we can test that theory of consciousness. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 19:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. That is a fiction of historical revisionism. Science is a kind of philosophy, philosophy is a refinement of theology. You will never find a civilization which has developed science without philosophy or philosophy without some kind of spiritual framework of cosmology. That's just the facts, man. The founders of Western Enlightenment science would be quite surprised to hear that their invention of science was a fight against theology as they were profoundly theological and philosophical in their orientation. It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. ... Theology, I guess you meant. Good point. Thanks. I have more sympathy for science rejecting Theology, just because I see Theology as focused on extending subjective types of truth to the public universe as a whole. Science may not be complete without addressing larger theological issues, but it has been important to temporarily suppress them to develop tools of objectivity. I agree. Aristotle's theological primary matter idea was a fertile simplifying assumption. It led to modern physics, but becomes an unconscious dogma, again, for many (but not all thanks God!) scientists since. I think that where it has overstepped its bounds in recent years (and I don't blame anyone for this, it's probably inevitable in the pendulum swing of the history of sense-making) is in using the objective tools to dismantle subjectivity altogether. That's why I was saying enemy of teleology. Sense, order, purpose, etc.. have become the despised contaminants which somehow are the exclusive province of the scientist, but not allowed anywhere else in the universe. OK. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. If you define theology as the term is used after its political perversion then I agree I don't quite see how changing the meaning of a word is a perversion, one meaning is as good as another as long as the meaning is self consistent and known to all, but never mind. That is why I make clear that I use the word in the sense of Plato, and not Aristotle. Sometimes new discovery force to backtrack on previous author. The important thing is that we both agree that if we wish to communicate then it might be wise to assign meanings to words as they have been assigned or 1500 years. In science we just quote the reference of the papers we are using. trivially with you. Trivially?! If 2 people want to communicate then agreeing on what language to do it in the the first thing they need to do. I am a bit astonished you defend so much the meaning of some words given by people you mock completely. You just confirm again that atheists defend the Roman terminology and theories. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. But then why do you keep defending their use of the word? This is nonsense. you need to believe in the Fairy Tale Christian God to make you feel serious in disbelieving it. Well yes obviously. Ah!?! I need to know what the hell they're saying before I can believe or disbelieve it, if I don't know the meaning of the words they're using then to me they're just making noises with their mouth, noises that are neither true nor untrue. You can also look at the reference or just read the post. I have defined God by the ultimate reality responsible (causally, arithmetically, whatever) for our existence and consciousness, that we don't know but are searching with the hypothetico-deductive method. To sum up with Hirschberger (a German expert of antic philosophy): Plato's God is the ultimate Truth, by definition. This suits well with the neoplatonist, for which I give an arithmetical interpretation of all terms. With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. Impossible, or comp is false. Fine, then comp is false. You believe that the brain are not Turing emulable? I never liked it anyway and still don't even know what that made up word of yours means, every time I think I know you say it means something that contradicts what you said it meant before and I'm back at square one. At square three to be precise. (Which means also that you know what comp means in my posts). Many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word God. The concept of God, as used by Plato, the mystics, well many people. That our culture has added fairy tales believed by a minority of Americans does not change the fact that the term refer to what the theologians are looking for, in general. It stultifies me that you want only use the definition of some christians, despite you mock them as not being serious. It means that you are unaware that you take a big part of Aristotle theology for granted. I do not, and to get the technical points and their possible realtion with reality, you have to make an effort for the weakening of your apparently unconscious religion (the belief in primary matter, the belief that God = Christian God, etc.). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the curse of materialism
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and multiplication in the sense I would wait for. Dear Bruno, Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form what you assume. It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation of arithmetics! But you have to derive the physical activity first, then. Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and developing communication methods between themselves. Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you prove it first. Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can transform and remain the same! ? (looks like a prose to me). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. No, postulating it by hypothesis. You miss the point. It is an hypothesis when we reason on it, and it is an act of faith when we use the hypothesis in real life (like saying yes to a doctor, or taking a plane, etc.). The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter- intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. You are too quick to equate a provisional entertainment of a propisition with faith, from which you jump to religion. I made clear that I use the term in a larger sense that any particular religion, and actually I use the term as used by Plato. This the liberal theologians move that John rightly mocks: If you believe anything then you believe in God because God is that thing. No. It is more If you believe in anything you believe in God because God, by the definition I use, is responsible for that thing. There is no reason to jump to God is that thing, which would make the word just empty. It's a move that made Paul Tillich famous, because he did it so nakedly. Here you betray that you really believe, in the pseudo-religious sense, in Aristotle theology. You confirm my feeling that atheists might be only *naive* christians which are deeply unaware of their faith. You really can't doubt that there might be any other notion of God than yours, even to disbelieve in, and apparently you can't doubt that reality might not be WYSIWYG. And you apparently believe you can take a word that has had a fairly fixed meaning for 1500yrs (by your reckoning) In our country. You can use the Chinese TAO, but people would also take that naming too much seriously. and when someone uses it you can say they are wrong because it really mean what Plato meant by it (although he spoke a different language). I'm sure Plato was criticized because he didn't use it to refer to Uranus and Gaea I have never found such accusation, and besides, it would be normal. Mathematicians and scientists are often criticized when they suggest theories which does noit fit intuition or popular superstitions. That happens all the time. Bruno and so distorted the real meaning - in fact Socrates was condemned for corrupting youths belief in those gods. Brent “When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else, for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe…. I warn people not to seek for anything beyond what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to seek for. In the last resort, however, it is better for you to remain ignorant, for fear that you come to know what you should not know…. Let curiosity give place to faith, and glory to salvation. Let them at least be no hindrance, or let them keep quiet. To know nothing against the Rule [of faith] is to know everything.” --- Tertullian -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:38, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, scientists are current theologians. But as such they are less modern than the greeks. In particular, they hide the metaphysical hypotheses. Because they've found that it is better to start from observation and to make progress where it can be tested rather than assuming some overarching metaphysics and then fighting wars over who's metaphysics is right. If only they did that. Well, the real scientists do such a thing, and that is why my work did not make any problem for scientists, only philosophers, except the vindictive atheists, who, at least in Brussels and Paris, just ridiculed themselves, as it was clear they were the religious dogmatic person. But some scientists also repeat, without knowing, the critics done by such pseudo-religious person. Perhaps they just want to defend the actual curriculum, with a neat separation between soft and hard science. I don't know, because they never accept to meet, or to come to a conference and make a critics in public. They don't because they are not even aware of what I wrote at all. Science is agnostic on both primary matter and most (non fairy tale) notion of God. Scientists who pretend the contrary are pseudo- religious believer in 2/3 or 3/3 of Aristotle theology, and they are just shocked with the idea that primary matter might be the next phlogiston. Actually such scientists seem to be not aware of the difference between primary matter and matter, and they have never read any theologians, so ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 21 Jan 2013, at 23:14, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: ...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth, does that mean: complying with human logic (any)? Not really. Arithmetical truth is independent of the humans. 17 would be prime even if the humans did not exist. This is made explicit by the comp context. if comp is false it might be different, and you are free to propose a non comp theory. But once you accept a digital brain prosthesis and survived, it is only a matter of time and work to understand that 17 is prime is not a specifically human truth, but an universal one. Just imagine a world (universe) without logically THINKING beings (humans?) with no math to formulate (numbers, to express): is there a God there? God is universal truth (that we are searching, or not). With comp, I would say yes, there is a God there, as with comp God is arithmetical truth, and arithmetical truth in true even in a world without any math formula. Now if you say that there is no number in that world, then there will be no God in the sense of comp. But I am not sure I can make sense of the word world with or without numbers. Numbers are not the type of things belonging to world, at least not with further precision. May be your question is not precise enough. Feel free to elaborate. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . . ==. The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14. The number of cells in the body is constantly changing, as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed. It means that bits information also constantly changing. Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ? No, we are called this process: ‘self organizing‘. ==. About ‘self organizing ‘. It is amazing to me, that some can use the term self organizing without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that claim that the universe lacks both mind and self. There just appears to be these massive blank spots in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self. It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality. They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid, self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded the complexity of the blocks themselves. I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception. / By Da Blob / ===.. -- 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: Math- Computation- Mind - Geometry - Space - Matter
On 22 Jan 2013, at 03:02, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, I am discussing ontology, there is no such a process as Turing or 'realities' or objects yet at such a level. All is abstracted away by the consideration of cancellation of properties. Let me just ask you: Did the basic idea of the book, The Theory of Nothing by Russell Standish, make sense to you? He is arguing for the same basic idea, IMHO. An expression like cancellation of properties needs already many things to make sense. Dear Bruno, Baby steps. The concept that Russell Standish discusses in his book, that is denoted by the word Nothing: Do you accept that this word points to a concept? Yes. But there are as many nothing notion than thing notion. It makes sense only when we define the things we are talking about. Dear Bruno, There is one overarching concept in Russell Standish 's book that is denoted by the word Nothing: But it is a meta notion. Hi Bruno, Of course it is a meta-notion! I am wrestling with metaphysics after all! I am interested in the philosophical notions that underpin mathematics and physics. I don't separate a priori those things. It is equivalent with everything. Sure. The point is that unless there is a selective bias on that collection of Everything, we cannot claim that Everything has any particular properties to the exclusion of other possible properties. We are forced to say that Everything has *all possible* properties simultaneously or, equivalently as Prof. Standish shows, that it has no properties at all. The selective bias is explained by the first person indeterminacy. It is a relative notion. Everything is usually to big to have properties. What you say does not make sense to me. It is the main thema of this list. Assuming everything is conceptually clearer than assuming any particular things. Comp provides only a mathematical instantiation of such approach, like Everett-QM on physical reality. And that makes it just one of many possible ways to obtain ontological theories that one can build coherent explanations upon. ;-) Yes. But comp is quite general, (only one scientist believe in non- comp, and a few philosophers), and, besides, I use comp to make thing easier, as the consequences follows from quite string weakening of comp. There is a mathematical equivalence between the Everything, as represented by this collection of all possible descriptions and Nothing, a state of no information. You see. But to make this precise you have to be clear of the things you assume (sets, or numbers, or ...). + their elementary properties without which you can do nothing. Correct, That contradicts what you said before. and we cannot ignore the role of change in our doings. Sure. but computer science, and thus arithmetic, explains change and doing quite well. This state of no information is equivalent to my concept of the ontologically primitive: that which has no particular properties at all. I see words without meaning, or with too much meaning. Try harder! Guess some meaning and see if it 'works'. I do that all the time. If I didn't I would have stopped to converse with you. I do that up to the point where I can show that what you say contradicts comp. Unfortunately, at that stage you try to save your idea (in the comp context) by fuzzification, and then you lost me. Thus is not not a number nor matter nor any particular at all; it is the neutral ground. But this discussion is taking the assumption of a well founded or reductive ontology which I argue against except as a special case. Additionally, you consider a static and changeless ontology whereas I consider a process ontology, like that of Heraclitus, Bergson and A.N. whitehead. Which makes no sense with comp. Just to define comp you have to assume, postulate, posit the numbers and their elementary properties. Sure, but that works within the domain of human discourse. We formulate explanations for each other and ourselves, this does not require that our explanation be anything more than just so' stories that we comfort each other with. If that is what you seek then I understand better why you avoid studying theories. You refer to paper which use the axiomatic method all the times, but you don't want to use it in philosophy, which, I think, doesn't help. You seem to not understand a simple idea that is axiomatic for me. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you understand the thesis of Russell Standish's book and the concept of Nothing he describes?
Re: the curse of materialism
On 22 Jan 2013, at 09:19, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Book: What is your dangerous idea? / Edited by John Brockman / Article: Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein; Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin. / by Lee Smolin. / ===. / Page 115 / Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that natural selection could act not only on living things but on the properties defining the various species of elementary particles. / Page 117 / We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson: The only way to understand how one out of a vast number of choices was made, which favors improbable structure, is that is the result of evolution by natural selection. / Page 117 / Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature, and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution. / Page 118 / And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution yet in science, . . . / Lee Smolin. / http://www.leesmolin.com/ ==. Questions. 1 On which biological level is possible to use phrase: Darwinian natural selection, Darwin’s evolution ? Difficult problem. Note that with comp, there is a sense to say that the physical laws appears through an evolutionnary process, but the evolution is a consciousness selection starting from (infinities of) number relations. it is not in space-time, as those ythings evloved first in the logico-arithmetical way. 2 On which biological level does consciousness appear ?. Molecular level, probably. I would say in bacteria. Self-consciousness appears much later, with more sophisticated unverterbrates, like the octopi and perhaps some spiders. But it is hard to know for sure, of course. When I read some newspaper, I can sometimes doubt that human are conscious. I guess they are, but like all conscious being they can be quite sleepy too. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the axioms I am assuming, etc. I don't see the problem. If you refer to the qualia, this is explain by the peculiarity of the logic of machines self-reference: when machine introspect they can understand things, without completely understanding the understanding process itself. It is normal, but it needs a bot of computer science and mathematical logic to get the complete picture. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the curse of materialism
On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and multiplication in the sense I would wait for. Dear Bruno, Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form what you assume. Dear Bruno, I will differ to David Chalmers work to demonstrate a thorough demolition of materialism. I see numbers are an aspect of mental content and not independently existing entities, so we have an irreconcilable difference in our thinking. It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation of arithmetics! But you have to derive the physical activity first, then. I no longer see the utility of trying to prove the existence of the content of 1p experience. I experience it and can bet that you do as well. That is my theory of a physical world and its activity in a nutshell. Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and developing communication methods between themselves. Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you prove it first. What benefit comes from this proof? Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can transform and remain the same! ? (looks like a prose to me). OK... -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 13:19, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Materialism is a religious cult who main tenet is contempt prioor to investigation. same for weak materialism (see my previous post to you). Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:07 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the field of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there.� And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions.� � Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. � � � What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. � John k Clark � -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this. Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious. I think of the universe not so much as something we live or infer as just the ultimate context of consideration. Sort of the idea of the largest possible here. Where does provability by mathematical logic come in? I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief: [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p (for the rich machines). Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p). In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p - p) - []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious. It only makes sense to me that propositions are a facet of conscious experience. I don't see that propositions, or words, or figures drawn on paper, or any other symbolic form would themselves play at consciousness. We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said unconscious faith, I meant unconscious inference of something and the unconscious bears on inference, not on the content of the faith. Ok, I can see where an inference would be unavailable to personal consciousness (I call this perceptual inertia - expectations become backgrounded and implicit) but because we are organisms with particularly elaborate consciousness, I would not rule out that what has become less than conscious to us at the personal level is still conscious on sub-personal levels. Sub-conscious to 'us', but conscious to whatever community of sub-selves insist within us. You would call these machines, but I would say that their mechanistic qualities are a function of the subordinate relation. What we don't relate to personally is perceived through a filter of impersonality. Add to that that there may indeed be, in an absolute sense, less degrees of freedom on the sub-personal levels as they extend into the inorganic levels of description - which is where we find the protocols of arithmetic. Side note - The idea of this sliding scale of personal identification can be applied to typical gender relations, as there is a somewhat exceptional role that gender plays in the sense of being both objectified due to social-biological unfamiliarity but also charged with overly subjective archetypal association. A tendency to feel that members of the opposite sex are presented as both deeply 'within' us and at the same time far outside of us. or how does unconscious faith become conscious only to become partially obscured once again and in need of proof to restore it to consciousness? No need of proof as there is none. That consciousness comes, and quit is usual. You are quite conscious of driving when being a young driver, then most of the driving become unconscious when older ... until you get a problem with the car and are conscious again. Consciousness is related to focusing attention, notably. I agree, focusing attention is probably the primordial motor capacity in the universe. Participation in its rawest form begins with the ability to express a personal preference of one
Re: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . . ==. The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14. The number of cells in the body is constantly changing, as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed. It means that bits information also constantly changing. Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ? No, we are called this process: ‘self organizing‘. ==. About ‘self organizing ‘. It is amazing to me, that some can use the term self organizing without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that claim that the universe lacks both mind and self. There just appears to be these massive blank spots in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self. It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality. They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid, self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded the complexity of the blocks themselves. I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception. / By Da Blob / Regarding self-organizing, In Bruno's words I postulate a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness and contains the forms of Plato from which come the principles and forms of self-organization. There may be as well little quantum minds associated with each 12d universe. But according to string theory, or perhaps my interpretation of it, each universe lacks its own compactification flux or fibrations (whatever) on which MWI type computations can be written. Only the 14d Metaverse has a 4 Dimensional Block Space with such volume-filling fluxes or fibrations for writing both all the quantum state possibilities in the future (so to speak- in the block metaspace the future is a space dimension) as well as all the happenings in the past. This is derived from 26d string theory separated into a 14d Many-World MW Metaverse and 12d MW universes, both containing supersymmetry. Richard http://www.math.mcgill.ca/palka/mgr-fiz-w.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics) These manifolds offer several globally defined forms in terms of which vev-derived fluxes could be written that might drive the super-Higgs mechanism. ...page 147 of http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/thomas_house/thesis.pdf ===.. -- 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: the curse of materialism
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and multiplication in the sense I would wait for. Dear Bruno, Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form what you assume. Dear Bruno, I will differ to David Chalmers work to demonstrate a thorough demolition of materialism. I see numbers are an aspect of mental content and not independently existing entities, so we have an irreconcilable difference in our thinking. Then comp is meaningless. Even Church thesis is meaningless. Most papers you referred to becomes meaningless. It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation of arithmetics! But you have to derive the physical activity first, then. I no longer see the utility of trying to prove the existence of the content of 1p experience. I was talking of deriving physics. We accept content of experience in comp, but then we can recover it from the numbers complex behavior when looking at themselves. Then physics is or should be explained from that, as UDA explains. I experience it and can bet that you do as well. That is my theory of a physical world and its activity in a nutshell. That's the part where we agree. I explain experience from computer science, and it seems you disagree with this, but then I don't understand why you keep defending comp as it is clear it does not fit with your theory. Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and developing communication methods between themselves. Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you prove it first. What benefit comes from this proof? To get an explanation. Bruno Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can transform and remain the same! ? (looks like a prose to me). OK... 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this. Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious. I think of the universe not so much as something we live or infer as just the ultimate context of consideration. Sort of the idea of the largest possible here. Where does provability by mathematical logic come in? I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief: [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p (for the rich machines). Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p). In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p - p) - []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious. It only makes sense to me that propositions are a facet of conscious experience. Not necessarily. Don't confuse the propositions and the content of the proposition. I don't see that propositions, or words, or figures drawn on paper, or any other symbolic form would themselves play at consciousness. Indeed, they don't. No more than SWE, or a book on black hole. Even neurons does not play at consciousness in the comp theory. They make it only relatively manifestable. Consciousness is already beyond word. It is a mystical truth, yet quite common. We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. What is conscious is the person making the inference (of a reality). Consciousness is not the inference, not the symbols used, etc. Consciousness is in the knowledge of the person, and that is non computably associated to infinities of computations. But it can obeys laws, and be described with a theory, or a meta-theory, because consciousness has no formal term to refer to it. Like arithmetical truth has no term to refer to it in arithmetic. that is why modal logic is useful, as it makes possible to talk about things which have no descriptions. Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said unconscious faith, I meant unconscious inference of something and the unconscious bears on inference, not on the content of the faith. Ok, I can see where an inference would be unavailable to personal consciousness (I call this perceptual inertia - expectations become backgrounded and implicit) but because we are organisms with particularly elaborate consciousness, I would not rule out that what has become less than conscious to us at the personal level is still conscious on sub-personal levels. I tend to believe this, actually. But not really from my reflexion of comp, but from my reading of books on brains, and then my reading of salvia reports (and other plants). I tend to think that our consciousness result from the association of at least a dozen of already conscious beings integrated in some way. some drugs dissociates those presence. Amazingly some presence might not been in the brain, but in arithmetic, to which our brain is naturally connected. It is an open problem to relate this with the 8 hypostases. Normally only two of them experience consciousness (S4Grz1 and the X1*). But things can be more complex. Sub-conscious to 'us', but conscious to whatever community of sub- selves insist within us. I can be quite OK with this. You would call these machines, but I
Re: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Very nice explanation. Congratulation There is only one small problem: It is too complex. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough / Albert Einstein. / ==. On Jan 22, 6:28 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . . ==. The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14. The number of cells in the body is constantly changing, as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed. It means that bits information also constantly changing. Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ? No, we are called this process: ‘self organizing‘. ==. About ‘self organizing ‘. It is amazing to me, that some can use the term self organizing without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that claim that the universe lacks both mind and self. There just appears to be these massive blank spots in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self. It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality. They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid, self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded the complexity of the blocks themselves. I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception. / By Da Blob / Regarding self-organizing, In Bruno's words I postulate a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness and contains the forms of Plato from which come the principles and forms of self-organization. There may be as well little quantum minds associated with each 12d universe. But according to string theory, or perhaps my interpretation of it, each universe lacks its own compactification flux or fibrations (whatever) on which MWI type computations can be written. Only the 14d Metaverse has a 4 Dimensional Block Space with such volume-filling fluxes or fibrations for writing both all the quantum state possibilities in the future (so to speak- in the block metaspace the future is a space dimension) as well as all the happenings in the past. This is derived from 26d string theory separated into a 14d Many-World MW Metaverse and 12d MW universes, both containing supersymmetry. Richardhttp://www.math.mcgill.ca/palka/mgr-fiz-w.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics) These manifolds offer several globally defined forms in terms of which vev-derived fluxes could be written that might drive the super-Higgs mechanism. ...page 147 ofhttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/thomas_house/the... ===.. -- 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
What could be simpler than splitting the 26 dimensions into two groups that are both superstring theories. It certainly is less complicated than General Relativity On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Very nice explanation. Congratulation There is only one small problem: It is too complex. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough / Albert Einstein. / ==. On Jan 22, 6:28 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . . ==. The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14. The number of cells in the body is constantly changing, as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed. It means that bits information also constantly changing. Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ? No, we are called this process: ‘self organizing‘. ==. About ‘self organizing ‘. It is amazing to me, that some can use the term self organizing without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that claim that the universe lacks both mind and self. There just appears to be these massive blank spots in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self. It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality. They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid, self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded the complexity of the blocks themselves. I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception. / By Da Blob / Regarding self-organizing, In Bruno's words I postulate a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness and contains the forms of Plato from which come the principles and forms of self-organization. There may be as well little quantum minds associated with each 12d universe. But according to string theory, or perhaps my interpretation of it, each universe lacks its own compactification flux or fibrations (whatever) on which MWI type computations can be written. Only the 14d Metaverse has a 4 Dimensional Block Space with such volume-filling fluxes or fibrations for writing both all the quantum state possibilities in the future (so to speak- in the block metaspace the future is a space dimension) as well as all the happenings in the past. This is derived from 26d string theory separated into a 14d Many-World MW Metaverse and 12d MW universes, both containing supersymmetry. Richardhttp://www.math.mcgill.ca/palka/mgr-fiz-w.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics) These manifolds offer several globally defined forms in terms of which vev-derived fluxes could be written that might drive the super-Higgs mechanism. ...page 147 ofhttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/thomas_house/the... ===.. -- 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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: Brain as Machine (was: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.)
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:53:17 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Do you disagree that swapping a carbon atom for another carbon atom in the brain will leave brain function and consciousness unchanged? I don't believe that we will necessarily know that our consciousness is changed. Even LSD takes a few micrograms to have an effect that we notice. Changing one person in the city of New York with another may not change the city in any appreciably obvious way, but it's a matter of scale and proportion, not functional sequestering. The field of nuclear medicine involves injecting radiolabeled chemicals into subjects and then scanning for them with radiosensitive equipment. This is how PET scanners work, for example. The idea is that if the injected chemical is similar enough to normal biological matter it will replace this matter without affecting function, including brain function and consciousness. You could say this is a practical application of the theory that consciousness is substrate-independent, verified thousands of times every day in clinical situations. That's because the radioactivity is mild. Heavy doses of gamma radiation are not without their effects on consciousness. Anything that you do on the nuclear level can potentially effect the chemical level, which can effect the biological level, etc. These levels have different qualities as well as quantitative scales so it is simplistic to approach it from a quantitative-only view. Awareness is qualities, not just quantities. Obviously, if the change you make to the brain changes its function it could also change consciousness. This is the functionalist position. The functionalist position implies that function alone generates consciousness. My position is that consciousness itself is the generator, not the generated. This does not mean that the brain does not provide consciousness with access to a human quality experience - it does, along with providing a lot of living cells and organic molecules with experience on their own levels as well. You have claimed that this is wrong, and that no matter how closely a replacement brain part duplicates the function of the original there will be a change in consciousness, Not exactly. I say that there is no such thing as duplication in an absolute sense. When something seems similar enough to another thing, we can say that it has been duplicated, but this is a function of our pattern recognition capacities. This is not an issue for most forms and functions which we produce, but that's because there are no other forms or functions which are *us*. That little detail changes everything, and it is the same detail which makes us aware of consciousness in the first place. Because I understand that consciousness is not produced by a function of the brain, (the brain is used as a vehicle to participate in many conscious experiences), I can see the flaw in the reasoning which assumes that the self can be replaced. This is not some sentimental attachment for the sacredness of the self, rather it is a clear apprehension of the ontology of subjectivity as private physics. You can replace the function of a limb with a prosthetic limb, but you have not replaced the limb. You can simulate the function of a fireplace with concrete 'logs' and and a heat source, but you have not replaced the fireplace. All you have done is satisfied some limited expectations of certain sense channels. You cannot replace a person's head or brain in their entirety because there is nothing left of the person which you are trying to convince has been replaced. Replacement is a function of mechanistic expectation, not the concrete reality of physics. simply because it isn't the original. If this were so, you would expect a change in consciousness when atoms in the brain are replaced with different isotopes, even if the isotopes are not radioactive. And yet this is not what happens. No, that is not what I would expect at all. If you made a few people in New York City wear the same yellow hats, would you expect New York City to be changed? How about if you got rid of all the people and replaced them with audioanimatronic mannequins that wear yellow hats instead? See the difference? The scientific explanation is that chemistry is for the most part unaffected by the number of neutrons in the nucleus, and that since the brain works by means of chemical reactions, brain function and hence consciousness are also unaffected. But the brain works by means of experiences as well. If I say something that makes you mad, your brain chemistry is changed - not by chemistry, but by your interpretations of my intentions and meanings. It's true that events on different layers of public and private physics have highly
Re: the curse of materialism
On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:42:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. That's something evolution explains. Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be convenient if there were such things as representations, but it offers no such thing as a physical ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why we have teleportation, time travel, and telepathy in the same way. If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer science and learn how a computer can have representations of cities and faces. I have taught computer classes professionally actually. I'm certified MCSE and CCEA and have been using computers on a daily basis since 1981. Computers have no representations. It is us who use pixels to represent images or transistors to represent bits of information, ...and images (in computers) represent objects. Images only represent objects to us. Nothing represents anything to a computer, any more than mousetrap snapping shut represents an intention to kill mice. not a computer. A computer wouldn't know the difference between a city and a face if it scanned every image of a face and a city in existence. Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. You could rename both to 'images of Fred's scalp' and it won't care. Computers are useful to us because they are stupider than any person ever could be. They will work on the same futile functions unquestioningly forever. They work for free as long as the physical substrate allows it. Craig Brent I recommend you study semiotics and learn how symbols and subjects relate. When it comes to semiotics, I'm a pragmatist. The meaning of a symbol is how it effects the perceiver. I think it's amusing that what is taken as serious academic philosophy in France is done in the U.S. as marketing research. Brent Craig Brent -- 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/-/49pVJoVghBIJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13 -- 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/-/XHBsGIp9CT4J. 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:15:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this. Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious. I think of the universe not so much as something we live or infer as just the ultimate context of consideration. Sort of the idea of the largest possible here. Where does provability by mathematical logic come in? I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief: [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p (for the rich machines). Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p). In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p - p) - []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious. It only makes sense to me that propositions are a facet of conscious experience. Not necessarily. Don't confuse the propositions and the content of the proposition. The form of a proposition is an even more abstract facet of conscious experience. I don't see that propositions, or words, or figures drawn on paper, or any other symbolic form would themselves play at consciousness. Indeed, they don't. No more than SWE, or a book on black hole. Even neurons does not play at consciousness in the comp theory. They make it only relatively manifestable. Consciousness is already beyond word. It is a mystical truth, yet quite common. Then why would comp be primitive and not the mystical truth through which comp comes to our attention? We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. What is conscious is the person making the inference (of a reality). Consciousness is not the inference, not the symbols used, etc. Why not? What else would they be? Consciousness is in the knowledge of the person, Consciousness makes knowledge available to a person in the first place. Unconscious people can gain no knowledge. Conscious people can be conscious whether or not they acquire any knowledge. This may be the core disagreement that I have with your position. Consciousness is in knowledge? Not a chance. Pain hurts whether or not you know anything about anything. and that is non computably associated to infinities of computations. But it can obeys laws, and be described with a theory, or a meta-theory, because consciousness has no formal term to refer to it. Like arithmetical truth has no term to refer to it in arithmetic. that is why modal logic is useful, as it makes possible to talk about things which have no descriptions. That assumes that logic is independent of consciousness. I see that it is actually the range of conscious presentations which is furthest from the core. Logic is sense, but it is the sense of the opposite of sense - automated inevitable senseless sense. Applying modal logic to consciousness in that way is like going into a cave with a blacklight and fluorescent paint to study the sun. Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said unconscious faith, I meant
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:23:37 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. Then by that logic, the practice of bloodletting should represent Medicine, and witch burning should represent Justice. than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. It did for many people. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ I would be curious, if eugenics were a new idea today, how you would receive it? Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is bullshit, the question is what should make me care one way or another? The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are. Neither is quantum mechanics, but that isn't my example. The Tower of Babel is an account of how the diversity of languages came from a single united source. Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing the waters and whatnot... continue until the mixture reaches 'complexity'. It works the same way in religion as it works in science, except that science formulates its models from the outside in. Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Oh you were a team lead on the LHC project which was enormously successful at validating the Standard Model? Sorry, we're not interested in hiring or funding any of those people. Do you know anyone who worked for that project that we can't tell if it was competently executed or not, because we are interested in contradicting what we think we know. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. Of course they won't keep recreating the same laboratory over and over again, but that doesn't mean that the researchers won't be well rewarded with future opportunities. Craig John K Clark -- 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/-/2OmlCaRiSHcJ. 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? 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/-/j-kbHm3ANDIJ. 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: Is there an aether ?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Sorry. I don't need 'the 26 dimensions' to explain 'a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness' For me ( as a peasant ) enough one dimension to give the scheme of the primary conditions of existence. .. Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe. ==. At first I take the simplest reference frame – - the Euclidean space ( 2D). Now I will put a virtual - ideal particle in this 2D. The 2D is a very thin and flat homogeneous space, so my particle also must be thin and flat and symmetrical. Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string? No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle. Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop? No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex, needs supplementary forces to create it. Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle? Yes. From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical. The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and I will write it by formula: C/D= pi= 3.14. (!) But I can put many particles there, for example, Avogadro’s number of particles: N(a). (!) # What is my next step? If I were a mathematician I would say nothing. But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T) and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right. Then, volume (V) is zero, temperature (T) is zero but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space then its density can approximately be zero. # What can I do with these three parameters? I have only one possibility, to write the simplest formula: VP/T=R ( Clausius Clapeyron formula ! ) What is R? R is some kind of physical state of my 2D. And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k, then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!) # But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space, as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E). And its value must be enormous. But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately massless (M). Fact. The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small (the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that physicists say: ‘ More than 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen.’ And nobody knows what this unseen ‘dark matter’ is. So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately dark massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single virtual- ideal particle ( according to Einstein and Dirac) is E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 ! ) ( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’ and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .) In potential state my particle doesn’t move, so its impulse is h = 0. # My conclusion. I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has geometrical and physical parameters: C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . , R/ N(a) = k, E/M=c^2, h=0. All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call ‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 . But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons, no time, no mass, no movement at this picture. # ===.. Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of motions. And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton: ‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’ # How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement? At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line along 2D surface from some point A to the point B. What is possible to say now? According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent. Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse. This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations. And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists, he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry. I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively. I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically. At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now. Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface. Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love. # My photon can have other possibility to move. This second possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck in
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. 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: the curse of materialism
On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading accuracy). And they do have representations of Mars and streets and signal lights and pedestrians; otherwise they could not successfully navigate. And no human need interpret the representations. 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: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- 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/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OmwLFfn7ecsJ. 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: Algorithmic Thermodynamics
Stephen and Russell I have been following this thread with interest as it relates to some research I am currently conducting. In Algorithmic Thermodynamics Baez and Stay make the following analogies: 1) The program runtime (E) is analogous to the energy of a gas in a container. 2) The length of the program V is analogous to the volume of the container. 3) The expected value N of the program output is analogous to the number of molecules in the gas. I have a question. In your opinion, what would be the algorithmic or informatic analog of a force field? More specifically, consider the following thought experiment consisting of a gas held in a tall thermally insulated column and in a uniform gravitational field. As the gas column reaches thermal equilibrium, the gas develops an adiabatic temperature profile (sometimes called the atmospheric temperature lapse, cold at the top and hot at the bottom). I am puzzled by what the force field analog of this thought experiment would be in the algorithmic or informatic context. What informatic or algorithmic phenomenon would cause a change in the program runtime (which according to Baez and Stay is the analog to the kinetic energy of the gas molecules?) George Levy On 1/17/2013 6:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/17/2013 7:10 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I particularly liked this statement by Baez which relates to Feynman renomalization for QED and Crammer's Transactioanal Analysis: Manin and Marcolli [20] derived similar results in a broader context and studied phase transitions in those systems. Manin [18, 19] also outlined an ambitious program to treat the infinite runtimes one finds in undecidable problems as singularities to be removed through the process of renormalization. Also: To see algorithmic entropy as a special case of the entropy of a probability measure, it is useful to follow Solomonoff [24] and take a Bayesian viewpoint. which answers Russell's concern. My overall impression from tthe Baez paper is that the Quantum Mind could use a similar analysis to predict/represent the behavior of classical systems based on computable real numbers but not quantum systems based on complex variables. Dear Richard, The the behavior of classical systems based on computable real numbers is not an improvement over quantum systems based on complex numbers. At least systems based on complex numbers can deal with phase relations and generate finite approximations in finite time. Real number based computation is ... difficult. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_computation How can you even program them? Richard On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Russell Standishli...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: From just the abstract alone, I can't see how this differs from the Solomonff universal prior? Cheers -- 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? Craig Hi Craig, This video lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjABUhyu6dw does a good job showing how a psychiatrist, Niall McLaren, argues toward a dual aspect theory. I recomend his books: http://www.niallmclaren.com/bibliography -- 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? Craig Hi Craig, This video lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjABUhyu6dwdoes a good job showing how a psychiatrist, Niall McLaren, argues toward a dual aspect theory. I recomend his books: http://www.niallmclaren.com/bibliography Thanks Stephen, I'll check out the video! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/iQtaEET0eE4J. 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.
