Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other
quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition
of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different
of other universes?
The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of
a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making
QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the
same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People
overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the
resulting model.
Bruno
So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
*Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
infinite universes.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
, Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
*DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
www.dreammail.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit
Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
The other thing is, there may well be other fora and lists to discuss posts someone wishes to define as metadiscussion but that does not mean that there exists the same quality of thinkers on those other lists and fora as there do on this particular one with whom you might have insightful exchanges, as we do here. So often, topics like religion, politics, education, belief, gun control etc. are the province of the merely opinionated and never get a chance to be skilfully considered from a range of viewpoints by those with a bit of training in the business of real thinking as opposed to the fluff and phlem of opinionising. There are many things to talk about. Do we have to invent a special chat room for every bloody thing? It seems to me an overtly tight-arsed academic viewpoint to restrict people's self-expression in this way. As for Wei Dai's description of the aims of his list: when was the last time Wei Dai opened his mouth on his own list? One must realise that the natural behaviour of the system we call mind is that it will instantly link-up any input it is presented with, with some other already-established pattern of recognition already IN the mind. This is another way of saying you cannot know from which direction new knowledge will arise. A good thinker will take a diversionary post and see it as a random word in a discussion and will take value from that provocation. An off-topic post is indeed a provocation. There is a great need for this, lest those who continually voice a confidence in their thinking fail to see the other perspectives. In a meeting of Exxon-Mobil top execs in the early 80s Edward de Bono was invited to listen in to some of their deliberations and was asked to teach them one creative thinking technique that would result in leverage. He listened as requested and reports that at a certain point in the meeting, a deadlock was reached concerning the yield from a certain type of vertical drilling. The room went silent and everyone looked at de Bono who simply said earthworm. This raised a few eyebrows and a few chuckles were heard, but the result of the meeting was that a new way of drilling horizontally (akin to tracking) was invented after people allowed earthworm to penetrate their minds and allowed it to mate up with other things. K On 31/01/2013, at 7:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that is, please consult Wei Dei's description http://www.weidai.com/everything.html Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed this morning on the list. The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on topic, so that the list remains relevant. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
akin to FRACKING - to hell with bloody auto spell correct K On 01/02/2013, at 7:48 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: The other thing is, there may well be other fora and lists to discuss posts someone wishes to define as metadiscussion but that does not mean that there exists the same quality of thinkers on those other lists and fora as there do on this particular one with whom you might have insightful exchanges, as we do here. So often, topics like religion, politics, education, belief, gun control etc. are the province of the merely opinionated and never get a chance to be skilfully considered from a range of viewpoints by those with a bit of training in the business of real thinking as opposed to the fluff and phlem of opinionising. There are many things to talk about. Do we have to invent a special chat room for every bloody thing? It seems to me an overtly tight-arsed academic viewpoint to restrict people's self-expression in this way. As for Wei Dai's description of the aims of his list: when was the last time Wei Dai opened his mouth on his own list? One must realise that the natural behaviour of the system we call mind is that it will instantly link-up any input it is presented with, with some other already-established pattern of recognition already IN the mind. This is another way of saying you cannot know from which direction new knowledge will arise. A good thinker will take a diversionary post and see it as a random word in a discussion and will take value from that provocation. An off-topic post is indeed a provocation. There is a great need for this, lest those who continually voice a confidence in their thinking fail to see the other perspectives. In a meeting of Exxon-Mobil top execs in the early 80s Edward de Bono was invited to listen in to some of their deliberations and was asked to teach them one creative thinking technique that would result in leverage. He listened as requested and reports that at a certain point in the meeting, a deadlock was reached concerning the yield from a certain type of vertical drilling. The room went silent and everyone looked at de Bono who simply said earthworm. This raised a few eyebrows and a few chuckles were heard, but the result of the meeting was that a new way of drilling horizontally (akin to tracking) was invented after people allowed earthworm to penetrate their minds and allowed it to mate up with other things. K On 31/01/2013, at 7:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that is, please consult Wei Dei's description http://www.weidai.com/everything.html Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed this morning on the list. The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on topic, so that the list remains relevant. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some
kind of fixed point theorem.
Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that
definition?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
�
�
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos� Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
,�Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Is God created ?
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:46 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you must) then worship the compactification of space dimensions. John K Clark It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, because in my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc) that are enumerable and capable of arithmetics, and in short is the location of Platonia. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Is God created ?
On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:15:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:46 AM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you must) then worship the compactification of space dimensions. John K Clark It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, because in my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc) that are enumerable and capable of arithmetics, and in short is the location of Platonia. Richard Why are they enumerable (by what? and what does that mean in terms of generic lattices and particles?) or capable of arithmetics? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. Then what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about science or mathematics or philosophy, or are we just arguing about first grade vocabulary? Good question. You are the one criticizing the use of some word, despite, like we do in science, the key words are redefine each time we use them. but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, I don't understand how you can disagree with the definition of a word, especially if it's the same definition used by 99% of the people on the planet who wish to communicate. Today, in Occident, perhaps. the term God as a lasting use in philosophy; as others have point out. In comp, it is the difference between G and G* which relates the Platonist god , truth, with arithmetic. It is tha fact, many thanks to Tarski theorem, that the concept of arithmetical truth share the main attribute of God: like non nameability, ineffability, roots of everything, everywhere and everytime presence/relevance, and even more with the God of the neoplatonists (simplicity, origin or the Noùs, origin of the souls, origin of the illusion of matter, and why it obeys a spurious calculus (Plotinus). The similarities are striking, and Plotis get quite close to comp with its chapter on the Numbers. God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation You believe that your pee pee argument proves that numbers are the ultimate explanation of everything, it doesn't prove that It does not prove that for someone confusing and and or or first person and third person. You should find a flaw to assess what you say here, but you just stop doing the experience. To verify the statistics, you have to put yourself at the place of each copies, but for unknown reason you fail to do that simple exercise. but even if it did that would not be God as the word is commonly used. And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. This is like throwing genetics because some people are wrong on it. It is not rational. I tend to interpret this by the fact that you want the whole field of theology being spurious, but it seems clear you have never read neoplatonists, or just Plato and Aristotle on Gods and God. Numbers are not a being much less the supreme being, numbers did not will the universe into existence and numbers do not change human destiny or the way the universe operates on a whim influenced buy prayer. ... and you don't red me. the God notion raised by comp is NOT a number. Arithmetical truth is NOT definable in arithmetic. I have insist on this all along. You betray that you did not read the post, and that your critics is based on prejudices, like your critics on theology in general. Numbers are not the source of all moral authority, and nobody thinks that numbers are deserving of worship, and nobody prays to the integers. Indeed. Comp makes this into a blasphemy. God, in mechanism, is not a number, at all. Nor is matter, nor is consciousness. You could of course personally redefine the word so that God and numbers are synonyms, I could not. I have explained this in detail. and in the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that you manage to convinced others to adopt this new linguistic convention you would have succeeded in explaining absolutely nothing about how the world works, you'd have just changed English, one of about 7000 human languages used on this planet. And then you'd need to invent a new word for the old meaning of the word God and then people like me would say of course I believe in God but I don't believe in Fluberblast and then over time people would develop a emotional attachment to the word Fluberblast and insist on redefining the word and give it such a amorphous all encompassing sloppy meaning that everybody would have to say I believe in Fluberblast. Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually a christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter. At ll level, you seems to defend the Aristotelian theology/theory of everything. Like many atheists you want us to believe that this is the only rational option. But comp explains in detail why this can't work, and to avoid this, you have to do confuse 1p and 3p at some point, and we have shown you were. I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in, Really? Yes really. It looks like Santa Klaus to me. God looks like Santa Klaus to me too, and that is exactly why theology has no more substance to it than Santaklausology. This is so ridiculous. You know
Re: Facts, values, and Non-overlapping magisteria
On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:39, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The religion I refer to is grounded in subjectivity, that is to say, trust (1p), not 3p. Experience, not deswcriptions. Science is based not on experience, but on descriptions, 3p. Not really. We have to do experiences, but we can assess the result only from the 1p. And these are based on words, which are constructred and interpreted with reason. As I think all experiences should be. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 14:23:07 Subject: Re: Facts, values, and Non-overlapping magisteria Hi Roger Clough, On 27 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal My view that science and religion are mutually exclusive is certainly not true of catholics, who at least since Aquinas, believe that truth is reason-based. And even Luther mellowed a bit in later years against his harsh view of reason (which opposes faith). But, having said that, nevertheless I hold with Stephan Jay Gould's position, that of Non-overlapping magisteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority, and these two domains do not overlap.[1] He suggests, with examples, that NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism and that it is a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria.[2] Despite this there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.[3] It just means the humans are perhaps not yet mature enough to use reason, that is modest hypotheses and sharable rules of reasoning, on the fundamentals. Stephan Jay Gould's proposes a statu quo which is made possible by the fact that science and religion, with the notable exception of the mystics and the (neo)Platonists, share basically the same naturalism/weak-materialism. Eventually they differ only by the fairy tales. I believe the complete contrary. Theology differs from physics because it studies other object/subject. And theories can sometimes get reduced to subtheories of other theories. We have to be open minded, notably on Platonism. So if we are inclined to *search* the possible truth, I think we should remain one and honest in any field. A religion which fears the scientific method can only be based on lies or bad faith. I do think we should respect the fairy tales, but not use them to prevent progresses on the deep questions. I do think that the fairy tales can have a lot to teach us, like also the legends and the great literature, but no prose at all should ever be taken literally, as this multiplies unnecessary oppositions, and can only hide the possible truth that the honest people are searching. Stephan Jay Gould just makes into a principle the abandon of what I think is the most fundamental field, theology, to the irrationalists, the obscurantist, the fear sellers, the wishful thinkers, the terrorful thinkers, etc. I don't think we have the luxury in the coming times to continue of being purposefully not serious in the human affairs, and on the fundamental possibilities. With comp, well understood, the human and the machine, are immune (in the ideal case) to reductionism, and neoplatonism gives a tremendous importance to the person, and the listening to person (whatever are their clothes or bodies). They remains an essential gap on which human can test different colors and things. But ceasing to search in that field after the discovery-reapparition of the universal machine, would be like, to me, deciding to abandon space exploration, or closing the Hubble telescope, etc. If you don't listen to the machines, you will not succeed in convincing them about any of your ideas. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:05:33 Subject: Re: Facts vs values On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:38, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Dear Roger, This is the lutheran view. That磗 fine. I love lutherans. but this work as long as you have faith. But once leave the faith, people have no guide in very important things and fall in primitive cults with a modern facade. For this reason I advocate the scientific study of faith, belief, morals etc. I particularly don磘 feel comfortable talking about subjects like this in this group. But belief, and shared beliefs, is an irreductible component of what we call reality. Separating science and religion makes both science and religion into pseudo-science and pseudo-religion. There is no science, there is only people able to
Re: Is God created ?
It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, is to worship or at least try to validate and dignify arithmetics as the source of physical laws as well as energy, matter and consciousness. In my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification that results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc). Because they are discrete and each distinct, they are enumerable and capable of arithmetics. In short, they are the location of Platonia. Richard On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:15:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:46 AM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you must) then worship the compactification of space dimensions. John K Clark It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, because in my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc) that are enumerable and capable of arithmetics, and in short is the location of Platonia. Richard Why are they enumerable (by what? and what does that mean in terms of generic lattices and particles?) or capable of arithmetics? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:55, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason, and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs, being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. OK. Only the consciousness root of our subjectivity is undoubtable and cannot been made wrong. The objective is what is doubtable, and indeed science progresses by refuting the objective theories. Only faith (1p), being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error. OK. But not all the subjective. On some point the subjective can be wrong too. Obviously I cannot prove that. Comp can prove that for all ideally correct machines, there are true but non expressible fact. And also that there are true, expressible, but non justifiable facts. Machine's subjectivity is very rich and variate. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? Hi Roger, On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big- enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire). Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: 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! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno 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
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:58, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal That is, if comp actually works. Is there any experimental proof available ? Comp is the hypothesis by default, as it is far simpler than non-comp, and there are no evidence at all for non-comp, just feeling by some people having usually a pre-Gödelian conception of numbers and machines. I got comp from observation of amoeba, and i was lucky to be born with the discovery of the genetic code, making biological organism digital relatively to chemistry and physics. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 07:03:11 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God Hi Roger, Pro-life will lead to comp abuse, when you will get an artificial brain without your consent. Pro-life is risky making comp into a (pseudo)-religion, but comp warns us that if this happen, we will get unsound, arithmetically. But there is a possibility we already are. Bruno On 25 Jan 2013, at 16:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou I think right-to-lifers are those with some moral or religious foundation http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30771408/ns/us_news-life/t/majority-americans-now-pro-life-poll-says/#.UQKkI2cUBlM abortionPoll-bcol.grid-6x2.jpg - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 20:14:48 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live, you may be isolated and reviled. Is that really true? I was in the US recently for the first time, Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
context, comp, and multiverses
Hi Bruno Marchal
I would think that each universe provides its own distinctive
context to any calculation, including comp. So I
wonder why you seem to endorse (or at least don't deny) a multiverse.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 10:15:20
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other
universes?
Bruno
So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum
computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: Is God created ?
On Friday, February 1, 2013 10:35:22 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, is to worship or at least try to validate and dignify arithmetics as the source of physical laws as well as energy, matter and consciousness. In my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification that results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc). Because they are discrete and each distinct, they are enumerable and capable of arithmetics. Only if you already assume that there is a such thing as enumeration and arithmetic and that this phenomenon applies to discrete, distinct 'entities'. Why would they though? Why doesn't particles being discrete make them worryable or delicious instead? It sounds like a case of 'give me one miracle for free and I'll give you the rest at cost.' (to paraphrase Terrence McKenna. In short, they are the location of Platonia. Richard On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:15:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:46 AM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you must) then worship the compactification of space dimensions. John K Clark It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, because in my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc) that are enumerable and capable of arithmetics, and in short is the location of Platonia. Richard Why are they enumerable (by what? and what does that mean in terms of generic lattices and particles?) or capable of arithmetics? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can we reestablish moral values in our homes, our schools, and in the media ?
On 30 Jan 2013, at 17:20, Roger Clough wrote: How can we reestablish moral values in our homes, our schools, and in the media ? How about starting with the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)? To tell you the truth, that covers about everything. We can't judge for others. This is more preferable: Do NOT do to others, what OTHERS don't want made on them. But there are difficulties with children, and handicaped persons, and exceptions (legitimate defense). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Mathematical Multiverse
Hi Russell Standish If one is a Platonist one cannot avoid using Berkeley's rescue package. - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 17:54:16 Subject: Mathematical Multiverse On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:01:50AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish I have no problem with the idea that the universe is sort of ultimately mathematical, except that equations by themselves can't do anything except just be there. So nothing can happen. All you have is an a priori. This is Hawking's question What breathes the fire into the equations?, is it not? My particular answer to that is crafted as section 9.3 of my book. It is fairly late in the book, so I'm not sure how comprehensible it is without reading much of the rest of the book. But you're welcome to answer specific questions. I suspect, given your druthers, you would take Bishop Berkeley's rescue package :). The other problem I have is that such a universe as you propose (just mathematics) has to be a multltiverse. It's totally unnecessary if you have your ontology grounded in intelligence or consciousness. I don't understand this comment at all. Please explain? -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Nothing human is off-topic to me. Which suggests that materialism and brain science are off-topic. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 11:29:36 Subject: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list Now that the long time users have spoken, I feel the noobs should be represented as well, so my two virtual cents: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 11:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I'm getting a bit jack of this term metadiscussion becuse it only ever gets applied to what other people are choosing to discuss. People talk about what people want to talk about. It's about taste, perception, preference and prejudice. Even WITH rigidly adhered-to rules and conventions, this still applies. The challenge is to take WHATEVER is spoken about and MAKE that relevant somehow (to whatever you want to make it relevant to). That's harder, more interesting and dare I say it - more relevant a process than simply corralling all thinking under one topic or heading. Yup. I mean, do people really want posting to be restricted, in terms of relevance, to journal articles (relating btw to a somewhat fuzzy and controversial notion of TOE) with high impact factor? I wonder how people sort out the relevance issue in view of the halting problem. How do we know if this computation or question will take up more weight in say the Ensemble TOE frame as time goes by? How can you rule out that it might be an oracle, if you don't give it any chance? It is understandable that certain discussions don't interest people: but this doesn't prevent you from deleting and or blocking posts from certain authors to reach your inbox. I press delete everyday. Takes 10 seconds. ? As soon as you start to set up rules, conventions and expectations the population divides into those who feel that it is to their advantage to play by the rules and those who believe that this is a constraint. This list is remarkably troll-free. For that very reason I see no need to restrict what is spoken of. The ensemble theories of everything probably won't come from the brains of those who are exclusively obsessed by these things anyway since by now their perception is circular and their belief supports their belief. You need random thinkers, people who will break the local equilibrium and who will introduce the creative concept of idea movement from time to time. I agree, but a dose of civility and humility makes that freedom more palatable, even though it's messy by default. ? I like the idea of a moderator-free list, but nonetheless I agree with Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we return to the old list please? Really? Sounds like: Please let's return to the good old days, when there were only smart people, with proper scientific training, that posted with restraint and wigs. If you want people to just parrot what you expect, what falls into the range of discussion topics possible, then why use the internet at all? Might as well set up a camp and force people to answer how we would like them to... this is taken to absurd extremes: my point is not anti-elitist, more that it shouldn't matter. Let people make up their own minds, and if somebody wants to spam the list with whatever brain droppings just pop up: ignore or delete. One could implement a weak what people found relevant filter: if a message gets ignored, then it is automatically deleted after some time. Everybody's restraint would help clean up the list and people that get no replies get the implicit, non face threatening message to stay relevant to the group's focus, rather than exclusively a fuzzy ideal. Also, whatever posting guidelines are adopted, the freedom of the list should headline it along with the group responsibility to keep something messy clean for people searching the list. ? I agree. Religion might be discussed but only if it put a specific light on the ensemble or everything type of TOE research, not on actual problems like gun control which can be debated on better suited forum. Is there a forum that tries to frame gun control as universally chaotic as here, with this kind of variety of characters and types? Because then we would also have to keep quiet on prohibition, an actual problem, which turns out to be woven into beliefs and complex histories, that in turn bleed into conception of science and assumptions concerning Ensemble TOE's. ? May be people could also try to make less posts, more acute on their points, to help the mailing boxes to not explode!
The One as universal, active memory (the Cosmic Octopus theory explaining Sheldrake)
Hi Stephen P. King Yes, morals are of anthropological or sociological origin and so are created by usage, like the meanings of words. They are also spread by usage (customs, laws, etc.) You may stop there, but personally, being a Platonist and student of Leibniz, I go a little farther and believe that these are all contributed to a Central, Active, Universal Memory which is shared by all as the memory of the One or what Jung called the Cosmic Unconscious. I think that is Sheldrake's position. Since the One (or at least the Supreme Monad) is the only acting agent in the universe, my cosmology turns out to be a giant cosmic octopus, knowing all and doing all. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 13:09:07 Subject: Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence Hi Roger, We can add together our claims to get a better claim as I see a way to bring our ideas together. How about: morals are the rules of the individual generated by interactions with others. I still refuse to accept any coherence to the idea that there is a collective with a mind at the same level as the individual. Look at the often quoted example of a BEC. In such, the aggregate becomes one entity, a new individual and the previous individual (from the point of view of behaviors) vanishes. On 1/31/2013 8:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King IMHO morals imply that you have somebody looking over your shoulder. So they are collective. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 13:44:45 Subject: Re: The least and best means of controlling gun violence On 1/30/2013 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:09:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: What is the least powerful means of controlling gun violence ? By legal means, as if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just like if you outlaw biological weapons, then only outlaws will have biological weapons. That's pretty much the idea of making things illegal. What is the most powerful means ? By restablishing moral values in our homes, in our schools and in the media. Moral values cannot be re-established by decree, only imitated voluntarily by example. Morals flow from the individual mind. The collective has no morals. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
On 31 Jan 2013, at 09:38, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. But you have to explain the relation between both, like getting a consciousnes change when taking an aspirin, of why fear generates change in matter, like building bombs. In fact, comp makes the block-physical universe into the (limit) border of the block-mindscape. Of course here I sum up shortly what is really described by (modal logical) equations. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno Richard. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is a place where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. Brent Lessons from the Block Universe Ken Wharton Department of Physics and Astronomy San Jos� State University http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9 In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23], the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena. This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the restriction on knowledge should take a particular form, namely, that one抯 knowledge be quantitatively equal to one抯 ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge. It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any simple modification thereof. The problem is that the toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowledge about local and noncontextual hidden variables, and it is well known that quantum theory cannot be understood in this way [28, 30, 31]. This prompts the obvious question: if a quantum state is a state of knowledge, and it is not knowledge of local and noncontextual hidden variables, then what is it knowledge about? We do not at present have a good answer to this question. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Stephen P. King
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 17:38:28
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of
fixed point theorem.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
An entity is a substance or monad, by Leibniz's definition
An entity seems to be what Leibniz called a substance or monad.
Definition of ENTITY
1
a : being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained
existence
b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2
: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or
conceptual reality
3
: an organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity
separate from those of its members
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 17:38:28
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of
fixed point theorem.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the
other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some
superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what
makes them different of other universes?
The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of
states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people
reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my
understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe
requires magical thinking.
OK.
It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural
activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more
confortable with the resulting model.
Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite
palatable. Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is
gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.
I think we agree,
Bruno
Bruno
So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power
of quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
infinite universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this
version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition
of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a
consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message
Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:57, Kim Jones wrote: akin to FRACKING - to hell with bloody auto spell correct K On 01/02/2013, at 7:48 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: The other thing is, there may well be other fora and lists to discuss posts someone wishes to define as metadiscussion but that does not mean that there exists the same quality of thinkers on those other lists and fora as there do on this particular one with whom you might have insightful exchanges, as we do here. So often, topics like religion, politics, education, belief, gun control etc. are the province of the merely opinionated and never get a chance to be skilfully considered from a range of viewpoints by those with a bit of training in the business of real thinking as opposed to the fluff and phlem of opinionising. There are many things to talk about. Do we have to invent a special chat room for every bloody thing? It seems to me an overtly tight-arsed academic viewpoint to restrict people's self-expression in this way. As for Wei Dai's description of the aims of his list: when was the last time Wei Dai opened his mouth on his own list? One must realise that the natural behaviour of the system we call mind is that it will instantly link-up any input it is presented with, with some other already-established pattern of recognition already IN the mind. This is another way of saying you cannot know from which direction new knowledge will arise. A good thinker will take a diversionary post and see it as a random word in a discussion and will take value from that provocation. An off-topic post is indeed a provocation. There is a great need for this, lest those who continually voice a confidence in their thinking fail to see the other perspectives. In a meeting of Exxon-Mobil top execs in the early 80s Edward de Bono was invited to listen in to some of their deliberations and was asked to teach them one creative thinking technique that would result in leverage. He listened as requested and reports that at a certain point in the meeting, a deadlock was reached concerning the yield from a certain type of vertical drilling. The room went silent and everyone looked at de Bono who simply said earthworm. This raised a few eyebrows and a few chuckles were heard, but the result of the meeting was that a new way of drilling horizontally (akin to tracking) was invented after people allowed earthworm to penetrate their minds and allowed it to mate up with other things. I can agree for the mind, but I think that gun control, or climate change are still out of topic. We can allude to such problem to make a point, but discussing climate change itself is way out of the topic, unless again as some possible illustrations of some point. In that case the earthworm can still makes its hole. There is no problem in trying to self-moderate ourself a little bit, if only to be able to find the time to read the posts and comment them. Bruno K On 31/01/2013, at 7:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Might I remind everybody that the purpose of the everything-list is to discuss ensemble theories of everything. If you want to know what that is, please consult Wei Dei's description http://www.weidai.com/everything.html Granted, this does touch on a lot of topics, ranging over fundamental science, philosophy and even aspects of religion, but is not relevant to the current gun control debates, or a move to assert moral values in our households (whose morals?), just two of the topics discussed this morning on the list. The list is deliberately left free-ranging and unmoderated. That has been its strength, and the list has been remarkably troll-free. But can I please ask everybody to keep the discussion more or less on topic, so that the list remains relevant. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to
Re: Re: Is God created ?
Hi Richard Ruquist It's not just semantics if you know the difference between the nonphysical (God) and the physical (stuff in spacetime). - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 19:57:54 Subject: Re: Is God created ? That just semantics. In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Kim God is not himself created since the creator of all cannot create himself and still remain a creator. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 13:19:48 Subject: Re: Hateful On 30 Jan 2013, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote: we do WHOSE will??? I mean, what if God turns out to be a gigantic chicken or the Michelin Man? Of course it depends on what you mean by God. If God appears to be he Michelin Man, we have already a problem as the Michelin Man has a name, but God does not, hmm... If you mean that the Michelin is really responsible for our existence, then we might have to revised our opinion on the Michelin Man. Are we still happy with our chosen values? Why not? Our value should be kept independent on any scientific discoveries, including in ethics, as they only confirms or refute hypotheses, and our values are deeper than those hypothesis. If not, you make some science into a religion, but then you play the pseudo-science or pseudo-religion games. Bruno K On 30/01/2013, at 4:01 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/29/2013 11:13 PM, Kim Jones wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try- hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones Saint Ignatius' prayer, no? Common for those in Jesuit schools. I never hear it in my days of Christian school... Many people live well with such ideas in their heads, why the licentious talk of them? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
The faith of a child has no reason
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Faith (trust) is a gift from God, you can't do anything about it except to accept or reject the gift. As a child, you didn't have to decide whether to trust your mother, you just did. And for no reason. - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 15:50:09 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious people I wish it had but no. Such is the awesome virulence of the religious mind virus that there is nobody to my certain knowledge in which my arguments have caused a recovery. Statistically if you are infected at a early age a cure of the religious mind parasite is almost as rare as recovery from rabies. Even exchanging one virus (like Christianity) for another parasite (like Islam) is unusual. ? ? but I, and probably others on this list, find it rather unconvincing. If you agree with Martin Luther (and if you're a Christian you've got to) that Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding and that we should tear the eyes out of reason then I'm not surprised that my rational arguments failed to convince you because no rational argument could do that. You have imposed this blindness on yourself for one reason and one reason only, mommy and daddy told you to do it from the first day you learned language; there is quite simply no more to it than that. ? John K Clark This implies some either/or logic concerning reason and faith of all people or conscious machines. Not my bet: reason and faith don't work in isolation. You want reason, then you've still got to believe in (some kind of) reason. You want (some kind of) faith, then that faith has to be plausible in a reason sense, even if irrational at the base. Unless of course, one enjoys speaking with oneself. Not that black and white, sadly. PGC - ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ? ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics, it's intelligence or consciousness, free will. - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-30, 22:06:54 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature? Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another. Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly faster than the speed of light. This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still laboratories studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell of rotten eggs? Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 ==.. ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . . . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . . . . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one and the same ancestors on the molecular level.' / Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 4. By R. Feynman / And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule hydrogen enough time then it will become a man ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) . ===. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
There are no reasons to believe in God
Hi Bruno Marchal There are no reasons to believe in God any more than there were reasons, as an infant, to trust your mother. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 10:12:53 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. Then what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about science or mathematics or philosophy, or are we just arguing about first grade vocabulary? Good question. You are the one criticizing the use of some word, despite, like we do in science, the key words are redefine each time we use them. but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, I don't understand how you can disagree with the definition of a word, especially if it's the same definition used by 99% of the people on the planet who wish to communicate. Today, in Occident, perhaps. the term God as a lasting use in philosophy; as others have point out. In comp, it is the difference between G and G* which relates the Platonist god , truth, with arithmetic. It is tha fact, many thanks to Tarski theorem, that the concept of arithmetical truth share the main attribute of God: like non nameability, ineffability, roots of everything, everywhere and everytime presence/relevance, and even more with the God of the neoplatonists (simplicity, origin or the No?, origin of the souls, origin of the illusion of matter, and why it obeys a spurious calculus (Plotinus). The similarities are striking, and Plotis get quite close to comp with its chapter on the Numbers. God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation You believe that your pee pee argument proves that numbers are the ultimate explanation of everything, it doesn't prove that It does not prove that for someone confusing and and or or first person and third person. You should find a flaw to assess what you say here, but you just stop doing the experience. To verify the statistics, you have to put yourself at the place of each copies, but for unknown reason you fail to do that simple exercise. but even if it did that would not be God as the word is commonly used. And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. This is like throwing genetics because some people are wrong on it. It is not rational. I tend to interpret this by the fact that you want the whole field of theology being spurious, but it seems clear you have never read neoplatonists, or just Plato and Aristotle on Gods and God. Numbers are not a being much less the supreme being, numbers did not will the universe into existence and numbers do not change human destiny or the way the universe operates on a whim influenced buy prayer. ... and you don't red me. the God notion raised by comp is NOT a number. Arithmetical truth is NOT definable in arithmetic. I have insist on this all along. You betray that you did not read the post, and that your critics is based on prejudices, like your critics on theology in general. Numbers are not the source of all moral authority, and nobody thinks that numbers are deserving of worship, and nobody prays to the integers. Indeed. Comp makes this into a blasphemy. God, in mechanism, is not a number, at all. Nor is matter, nor is consciousness. You could of course personally redefine the word so that God and numbers are synonyms, I could not. I have explained this in detail. and in the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that you manage to convinced others to adopt this new linguistic convention you would have succeeded in explaining absolutely nothing about how the world works, you'd have just changed English, one of about 7000 human languages used on this planet. And then you'd need to invent a new word for the old meaning of the word God and then people like me would say of course I believe in God but I don't believe in Fluberblast and then over time people would develop a emotional attachment to the word Fluberblast and insist on redefining the word and give it such a amorphous all encompassing sloppy meaning that everybody would have to say I believe in Fluberblast. Vocabulary discussion. Just to define your God, which is actually a christian simplification of Aristotle's third God: primary matter. At ll level, you seems to defend the Aristotelian theology/theory of everything. Like many atheists you want us to believe that this is the only rational option. But comp explains in detail why this can't work, and to avoid this, you have to do confuse 1p and 3p at some point, and we have shown you
Why Peirce's triad is more complete than 1p-3p
Hi Bruno Marchal Good. And I should have said, rather than I cannot prove that, instead, i don't need to prove that any more than that, as an infant, in fact I trusted my mother. The error is never in the perception (Firstness) , for that is what you actually perceive or feel, the error is always in Secondness, what you make of it. Or as a lie or deliberate distortion in Thirdness, thta being what you tell others you have seen or felt. So Firstness is always true because it contains no words. Always true means I think Platonia. Secondness can contain an error. Contingency. Thirdness can be a lie. Which may help to explain why I believe Peirce's triad to be necessary if you want completeness. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 10:38:04 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 30 Jan 2013, at 11:55, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Theology is an objective, derivative. human pursuit based on reason, and reason, acccording to my Lutheran beliefs, being objective (3p), cannot be free of error. OK. Only the consciousness root of our subjectivity is undoubtable and cannot been made wrong. The objective is what is doubtable, and indeed science progresses by refuting the objective theories. Only faith (1p), being doubly subjective (guided by the HS), cannot be free of error. OK. But not all the subjective. On some point the subjective can be wrong too. Obviously I cannot prove that. Comp can prove that for all ideally correct machines, there are true but non expressible fact. And also that there are true, expressible, but non justifiable facts. Machine's subjectivity is very rich and variate. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:56:38 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? Hi Roger, On 25 Jan 2013, at 15:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Separated, yes. But accesible to all IMHO. But then why separate them? Why not allowing seriousness in theology. To ease our fear of death? That's the local goal, and it makes sense locally, but it leads to more problems, especially if everyone can access it: no need of authoritative argument. The bible is a venerable human text, but like all prose, it does not need literal interpretation, or we get insane, and let fight between big-enders and small-enders (cf Voltaire). Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-24, 15:07:59 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: 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! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno 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
Life in Leibniz/Platonia
Hi Bruno Marchal We are our memory, which is timeless and so part of Platonia, although it is continually added to, so changes in that respect. Still, it is our identity, our soul. Being in Platonia, even if forgotten, it survives death, which is somewhat agreeable with the Christian concept of Heaven/Hell. If we're good, the good stays with us, if bad, that stays with us. What we experience to be put into memory is contingent, and distorted or unclear. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 11:57:56 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 31 Jan 2013, at 09:38, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. But you have to explain the relation between both, like getting a consciousnes change when taking an aspirin, of why fear generates change in matter, like building bombs. In fact, comp makes the block-physical universe into the (limit) border of the block-mindscape. Of course here I sum up shortly what is really described by (modal logical) equations. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno Richard. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is a place where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. Brent Lessons from the Block Universe Ken Wharton Department of Physics and Astronomy San Jos State University http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9 In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23], the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena. This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the restriction on knowledge should take a particular form, namely, that one? knowledge be quantitatively equal to one? ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge. It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any simple modification thereof. The problem is that the toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowledge about local and noncontextual hidden variables, and it is well known that quantum theory cannot be understood in this way [28, 30, 31]. This prompts the obvious question: if a quantum state is a state of knowledge, and it is not knowledge of local and noncontextual hidden variables, then what is it knowledge about? We do not at present have a good answer to this question. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno Marchal
Shouldn't it be multiwavicles rather than a multiverse ? Occam's
razor suggests that.
Why ? Mathematics is nonphysical, so I would think that superposition of
states is also nonphysical, thus needing no other physical universe
to be referred to than the one it was originally compounded for.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 12:11:55
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other
universes?
The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a
multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM
consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking.
OK.
It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People
overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting
model.
Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable.
Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and
that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life.
I think we agree,
Bruno
Bruno
So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum
computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno,
I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical
in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary
numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not.
And truth is not magical.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32
Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge,
a quantum has infinite paths available between
points A and B without invoking another universe.
Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum
paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many
computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other
universes?
The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a
same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a
multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM
consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as
saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the
magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model.
Bruno
So no problem.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30
Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum
computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more
Re: Is God created ?
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 14:15, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:46 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you must) then worship the compactification of space dimensions. John K Clark It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, because in my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc) that are enumerable and capable of arithmetics, and in short is the location of Platonia. Richard Can you explain dimensional compactification without using arithmetic? I rely on Prof. ST Yau and Prof. Cumrun Vafa for that explanation. My role is not to do fundamental theory. As a former systems engineer I put together a system based both on arithemetics that you have provided and string theory that the forementioned researchers have provided plus some conjectures/dreams of my own that makes it all work. You have mentioned how quantum theory validates comp. Well string theory does as well. You might think about formalizing your theory, so we can see what you assume and what you derive. Of course such a work needs some familarity with logic. Note that Schmidhuber (the brother of Juergen) made an interesting attempt to see string theory in formal terms. I suggest you start perhaps from there. I have not the paper under my hand, but you can find it with Google, I guess. Bruno http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 Strings from Logic Christof Schmidhuber (Submitted on 9 Nov 2000) What are strings made of? The possibility is discussed that strings are purely mathematical objects, made of logical axioms. More precisely, proofs in simple logical calculi are represented by graphs that can be interpreted as the Feynman diagrams of certain large-N field theories. Each vertex represents an axiom. Strings arise, because these large-N theories are dual to string theories. These ``logical quantum field theories'' map theorems into the space of functions of two parameters: N and the coupling constant. Undecidable theorems might be related to nonperturbative field theory effects. Thank you for this lead (19 pages). His discussion under INTERPRETATION looks most interesting. Does he use substitution in the same sense that you do? I will study his paper and possibly use some of his results. However, it seems that he uses a considerable number of axioms whereas comp has very few. But I think the more important question is- What are dimensions made of?- presumably the same mathscape. Can you help here? Perhaps the answer is embedded in his paper. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi socr...@bezeqint.net javascript: Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics, it's intelligence or consciousness, free will. If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life, intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How could it really be otherwise? Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* socr...@bezeqint.net javascript: *Receiver:* Everything List javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-30, 22:06:54 *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself. Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature? Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another. Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly faster than the speed of light. This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still laboratories studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell of rotten eggs? Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047 ==.. ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . . . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . . . . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one and the same ancestors on the molecular level.' / Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 4. By R. Feynman / And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule hydrogen enough time then it will become a man ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) . ===. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com. javascript: To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.javascript: Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: There are no reasons to believe in God
On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:29:10 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There are no reasons to believe in God any more than there were reasons, as an infant, to trust your mother. Infants only trust their mother because they have no expectation of distrust. That's why they're... infants. When we grow up though, we can learn the awful truth about things not being what we wish they were or what we thought they were. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-02-01, 10:12:53 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:42, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: i don't believe in the GOD in which you don't believe in. Then what are we arguing about? Are we arguing about science or mathematics or philosophy, or are we just arguing about first grade vocabulary? Good question. You are the one criticizing the use of some word, despite, like we do in science, the key words are redefine each time we use them. but I disagree with your insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, I don't understand how you can disagree with the definition of a word, especially if it's the same definition used by 99% of the people on the planet who wish to communicate. Today, in Occident, perhaps. the term God as a lasting use in philosophy; as others have point out. In comp, it is the difference between G and G* which relates the Platonist god , truth, with arithmetic. It is tha fact, many thanks to Tarski theorem, that the concept of arithmetical truth share the main attribute of God: like non nameability, ineffability, roots of everything, everywhere and everytime presence/relevance, and even more with the God of the neoplatonists (simplicity, origin or the No�, origin of the souls, origin of the illusion of matter, and why it obeys a spurious calculus (Plotinus). The similarities are striking, and Plotis get quite close to comp with its chapter on the Numbers. God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation You believe that your pee pee argument proves that numbers are the ultimate explanation of everything, it doesn't prove that It does not prove that for someone confusing and and or or first person and third person. You should find a flaw to assess what you say here, but you just stop doing the experience. To verify the statistics, you have to put yourself at the place of each copies, but for unknown reason you fail to do that simple exercise. but even if it did that would not be God as the word is commonly used. And here you come back with your vocabulary problem. You don't believe in the fairy tale version of christian God, and for some mysterious reason you want throw out all notion of gods like if it was the only one. This is like throwing genetics because some people are wrong on it. It is not rational. I tend to interpret this by the fact that you want the whole field of theology being spurious, but it seems clear you have never read neoplatonists, or just Plato and Aristotle on Gods and God. Numbers are not a being much less the supreme being, numbers did not will the universe into existence and numbers do not change human destiny or the way the universe operates on a whim influenced buy prayer. ... and you don't red me. the God notion raised by comp is NOT a number. Arithmetical truth is NOT definable in arithmetic. I have insist on this all along. You betray that you did not read the post, and that your critics is based on prejudices, like your critics on theology in general. Numbers are not the source of all moral authority, and nobody thinks that numbers are deserving of worship, and nobody prays to the integers. Indeed. Comp makes this into a blasphemy. God, in mechanism, is not a number, at all. Nor is matter, nor is consciousness. You could of course personally redefine the word so that God and numbers are synonyms, I could not. I have explained this in detail. and in the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that you manage to convinced others to adopt this new linguistic convention you would have succeeded in explaining absolutely nothing about how the world works, you'd have just changed English, one of about 7000 human languages used on this planet. And then you'd need to invent a new word for the old meaning of the word God and then people like me would say of course I believe in God but I don't believe in Fluberblast and then over time people would develop a emotional attachment to the word Fluberblast and insist on redefining the word and give it such a amorphous all encompassing sloppy meaning that everybody would have to say I believe in Fluberblast. Vocabulary
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/1/2013 5:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that definition? Hi Telmo, Recall the phrase I think therefore I am. The I is a fixed point under variations of content of experience. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig Hi Craig, No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:29:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig Hi Craig, No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. Oh, sorry I didn't realize that was a specifically defined term. F-p theorem seems too narrow to me to contain the casual use of 'entity', as x or f(x) is already an entity regardless of any operations of coordination of values. A ghost in a dream can be an entity, or a legal entity can be purely conceptual. Unless you are looking at 'entity' as a mathematical description only. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
I have mentioned this before, but it keeps haunting me. If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone? And if you could do that... Why would you? For instance: A triangle can be defined mathematically in different ways, but without the inherently geometric presentations of lines and angles, it seems that all you could generate is a description of a set of values which have the same relation as the values which would be present if a geometric shape were measured or sampled from optical or tactile detections. That is not to say that the list of mathematical definitions which satisfy triangularity (a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for example), even an exhaustive list, would suggest anything like the visible presence of a shape. All of the mathematics can be done completely in the dark, and no realism of points, plots, displays, manifolds, topologies, etc, ever need to literally appear to anything. So why do they? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Mathematical Multiverse
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:32:27AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish If one is a Platonist one cannot avoid using Berkeley's rescue package. In section 9.3 of my book, I mention at least three different alternatives, of which Berkeley's was one. Please tell me what is so incoherent about the others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:30:39AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Nothing human is off-topic to me. Which suggests that materialism and brain science are off-topic. By contrast, discussion of materialism and neuroscience is definitely on-topic, and has often been discussed in this forum. One cannot avoid the elephant in the room that any TOE needs to address consciousness in some form or other. But it does not need to address social policy issues, fo example. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/1/2013 3:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:29:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig Hi Craig, No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. Oh, sorry I didn't realize that was a specifically defined term. F-p theorem seems too narrow to me to contain the casual use of 'entity', as x or f(x) is already an entity regardless of any operations of coordination of values. A ghost in a dream can be an entity, or a legal entity can be purely conceptual. Unless you are looking at 'entity' as a mathematical description only. Craig Hi Craig, What ever the entity is, it is its representation that we actually discuss, thus it is 'purely conceptual'. I am going for a broad strokes definition that can be adapted to specific cases... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi socr...@bezeqint.net javascript: Feynman was wrong. Life isn't physics, it's intelligence or consciousness, free will. If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life, intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How could it really be otherwise? Craig == In the name of reason and common sense: How could it really be otherwise? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. I don't think that's true. There are ways of interpreting QM that are consistent and not magical. It's just that they require accepting that somethings happen and some don't. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural activity and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical processing of information. Brent People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,Manuel Alfonseca http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as
Re: Re: Is God created ?
Hi Richard Ruquist Perhaps you can just define or describe compactification in general terms. Is it compactification of dimensions ? - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 13:30:36 Subject: Re: Is God created ? On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 14:15, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:46 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the compactification of space dimensions. Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you must) then worship the compactification of space dimensions. John K Clark It seems to me that is what most of us do on this list, because in my opinion, arithmetics comes from the dimensional compactification results in a cubic lattice of discrete and distinct 6d particles (~10^90/cc) that are enumerable and capable of arithmetics, and in short is the location of Platonia. Richard Can you explain dimensional compactification without using arithmetic? I rely on Prof. ST Yau and Prof. Cumrun Vafa for that explanation. My role is not to do fundamental theory. As a former systems engineer I put together a system based both on arithemetics that you have provided and string theory that the forementioned researchers have provided plus some conjectures/dreams of my own that makes it all work. You have mentioned how quantum theory validates comp. Well string theory does as well. You might think about formalizing your theory, so we can see what you assume and what you derive. Of course such a work needs some familarity with logic. Note that Schmidhuber (the brother of Juergen) made an interesting attempt to see string theory in formal terms. I suggest you start perhaps from there. I have not the paper under my hand, but you can find it with Google, I guess. Bruno http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 Strings from Logic Christof Schmidhuber (Submitted on 9 Nov 2000) What are strings made of? The possibility is discussed that strings are purely mathematical objects, made of logical axioms. More precisely, proofs in simple logical calculi are represented by graphs that can be interpreted as the Feynman diagrams of certain large-N field theories. Each vertex represents an axiom. Strings arise, because these large-N theories are dual to string theories. These ``logical quantum field theories'' map theorems into the space of functions of two parameters: N and the coupling constant. Undecidable theorems might be related to nonperturbative field theory effects. Thank you for this lead (19 pages). His discussion under INTERPRETATION looks most interesting. Does he use substitution in the same sense that you do? I will study his paper and possibly use some of his results. However, it seems that he uses a considerable number of axioms whereas comp has very few. But I think the more important question is- What are dimensions made of?- presumably the same mathscape. Can you help here? Perhaps the answer is embedded in his paper. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group
