Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On Feb 12, 8:41 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/11/2013 10:15 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for the universe ' Brent It means that global conservation of energy is infinite . No, it means it's undefined - there's no unique way to add up the energy from different parts of a curved spacetime without an timelike Killing field - which describes our universe. Brent = The energy from different parts of a curved space and time (!) comes from infinite vacuum spacetime (!). Mr. Brent, do you understand the difference between spacetime and space and time? =. -- 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: The Plant Teachers
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:24:37 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Didn't think you did, as your statements mimic those of art critics who can drop some big names but otherwise have little to do with the daily craft. Because the amount of unsupported statements you make + their implications, if they were at least backed up by the experience you hang on so high a pedestal, we could have more of a discussion. Instead, you mostly keep throwing unsupported hyper-complex statements on hearing, musical mind, creativity, and frames that have little to do with a working knowledge of music. I didn't say that you *have to* use a scale to build a melody, but you can. But you'd make an excellent art critic, no doubt. You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation, Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of which we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories. That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce it. That is false. The majority of a composer's task involves adding and subtracting. In fact, you could teach a person to compose in any style with just too much or too little referring to a point in the piece (some measure or point). That's how most compositional craft is acquired because numbers, like musical chords and melodies, have qualities that are hardly reducible. Otherwise, composers could just bang out one hit or brilliant symphony after the other, if they could refer to some string with the same numeric relations of good music, that they had learned. We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the reality of what sound actually is: a sensory-motor experience aka qualia which cannot be reduced or described in any meaningful way. You are talking about how musicians compose that qualia into richer experiences, using technical methods. You are overlooking that, for instance, you can't make an aqueduct without the existence of water first. There's nothing to harmonize or augment or measure or point to without the fundamental physics of hearing sound as sound. And framing the problem of constructing an aqueduct requires some agent and a universe. You say something like material sub-personal physics of metaphysics of physical universe of sense to conceive of a bridge but I don't need to go that far. You could have quantitative inputs and magnitudes and histories without feelings or sensations. Show me one example where you can refute that possibility with absolute certainty. Skipping rope. You mind elaborating? Both ropes and skipping stir emotion in those concerned with them. and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples and meta-sensory correlations of those examples. Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic and thus the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, sensory realist concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as these: when teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, to human stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music appreciation. Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous as the arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection. I don't doubt the harmonic and arithmetic aspects of music, I only say that without the sensory experience of hearing sound they are conceptual noodlings that would be of no general interest. Well I doubt that you compose much, so why/how would you even know? Argument from authority. Not that it matters, but my wife is a musician and music teacher, so I hear a lot of music lessons. You're the one telling me that me that my scores and programs are nothing but conceptual noodlings, so I ask if you've ever cooked noodles. And the answer is no, which is plausible and consistent with what you argue. High-school bands, 5 years of Piano lesson or something, doesn't suffice to make such statement plausible, even if just from experience point of view. I'm not questioning your qualifications, I'm just saying that they may not be relevant. This is a physics issue, not a composition issue. I wasn't listing my qualifications, ok. Be wary of your projections. Concerning this, we're talking auditory perception with background to plant use and altered states of consciousness. If you want to approach things from physics, then talk acoustics + altered spaces of consciousness. I doubt that your theory can shed light on this. We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs, not because there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently of stomach ownership. Hunger is also a linguistic marker for insufficiency of a value. You never encountered a music that was lacking in some respect or the
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 11 Feb 2013, at 17:52, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If Bob is behind a door that will reveal Moscow and Bill is behind a door that will reveal Washington then the probability that Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washington is 100%. Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washington is very ambiguous. If Bob and Bill DID open a door I understand. and if Bob and Bill DID see Moscow and Washington Do you mean that a) both Bob and Bill see both cities, Moscow and Washington, at once? or do you mean that b) Bob saw once city and Bill the other? then my prediction was correct If you meant a) above, then comp is incorrect, as it supposed some telepathy. If you meant b) then both Bob and Bill will refute the statement W and M (with their first person meaning already exposed). if they don't then it wasn't, and there is nothing ambiguous in that. The result was that Bob and Bill DID open a door and Bob and Bill DID see Moscow and Washington, so the prediction was correct. If Bob and Bill are absolutely identical the probability that Bob-Bill will see Moscow and Washington remains at 100%. Bob-Bill will refute this once he, whoever he is, will open the door. No, it remained true that Bob and Bill opened a door and saw Moscow and Washington. I could have added in my prediction that the guy who didn't see Washington will be the guy who didn't see Washington, but it seemed silly to do so. The point with computationalism is that Bob and Bill have only once body and soul in Helsinki, but then differentiated into two persons having exclusive experience (seeing W and seeing M). None of them will note in the diary I see W and M. And the unique guy in Helsinki knows that he will surivive, assuming comp, and that he will in any case surivive as either Bob, or Bill, not as being the two person at once. You keep mixing the 3-view on the 1-views, And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person view, Yes, as it is the content of the diary of the guy I am asking the question where do you feel you are?. And the W-guy look in his diary where ha did put the result of his self-localization, and see W, and answer me W, and the other does the same and tell me M, and none told me, I am in both M and W, as none got that first person result. *THE* first person view is the content of the diary, of each persons resulting from the duplication. You keep playing with words, as everything is well defined in the paper. Bruno and that might be a OK approximation in a world without duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is only A first person view and one view is every bit as legitimate as another. And the only thing that turns one first person view into another first person view is what they view, so all you're saying is that the guy who sees Washington will be the guy who sees Washington which is too flimsy to build a philosophy on. John K Clark -- 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.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 11 Feb 2013, at 18:30, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say it is intelligent. Just like with God and atheist it looks like we're back at the tired old game of redefining words. Using the normal meaning of intelligent if somebody can beat you at checkers and chess and equation solving and Jeopardy then they are more intelligent than you at those activities. It is better to use the term competence. Competence depends on domain. I use intelligence for a deeper ability which does not need to be domain dependent. Yet it is needed to develop many sort of competence. So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent. It is competent in jeopardy. And just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at becoming better than human doctors at diagnosing disease. http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236 Making it competent in that domain. Intelligence is a more general mind state making it possible to be flexible, to get jokes, to get bored, to take distance, to be curious, to find new questions, to develop modesty, ... I am open to the idea that universal number are initially intelligent, but lost that intelligence when specializing too much (as they might lost also their universality). Intelligence is something emotional, and it relates consciousness and the many possible competence. Like universality, intelligence is domain independent. He lacks the self-reference needed to make sense of intelligence, Watson can do even better than make sense out of intelligence, Watson can make concrete actions out of intelligence, among many other things Watson can move chess pieces around in such a way as to beat you or any other human in a game. I can beat Watson in chess. Watson, if I remember correctly, is competent in Jeopardy, and only in Jeopardy. But that's besides the point. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. Today I see this in animals and humans. Perhaps plants on some different scales. Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others, unlike competence. But it can be locally appreciated, though. Bruno John K Clark -- 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.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote: On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947? Brent- . Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947, but not ' philosophical progress ' (!). We still haven't answers to the questiohs: What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?, What is the quantum of light ?, What is an electron?, What is entropy ? . . . . . etc. . . . .etc. To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method of renormalization . . . etc ) is not a progress. Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way. The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality, although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on the choice of the computational base, notably. So does comp answer socratus questions? It provides the only (with comp) path to formulate anew the questions, and get partial answers. Physics already gives partial answers. A quantum of light and an electron are just things that satisfy certain equations. I think that's as good an answer as comp is going to be able to provide - except comp can't yet even say what the equations are. The answers given by physics have to assume a relation between fist person and third person which is in contradiction with the computationalist hypothesis (by UDA). So it assumes a non computationalist theory of mind, on which it remains quite vague. And comp gives the equations, with the Z and X logics. Comp does not leave any choice on that matter. Some physicists don't see equations there, because they are not used to mathematical logic, but the equation and open problems are already there. Physics gives impressively good local compression of information, but does not address the mind-body problem, and yet, uses implicitly an identity thesis which assume non-comp. Physics is good on the physical realm, but *physicalism* is just refuted once we assume the brain is a finite machine. Bruno Brent And socratus seems aware of the failure of physics with that respect, so comp might help him (above the fact that to keep physicalism you must assume that we are not Turing emulable). 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. 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: Science is a religion by itself.
Euler Identity within a new quantum theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=_XZGOGvuBlIfeature=endscreen ==. On Feb 12, 7:35 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ? ==. Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum. I want throw light on this Vacuum. Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K : a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K, b) QED theory because this theory explain interaction photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too, c) Euler’s equation: e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the negative vacuum T=0K can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’ which Euler described by his formula: e^ i(pi) + 1= 0. d) The global conservation of energy is infinite . And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because that more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum How to understand vacuum's infinity ? Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K. This physical parameter is the key to understand the essence of Existence. =. Without Vacuum T=0K there isn’t Physics, there isn’t Philosophy of Physics. . Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. ==. On Feb 12, 7:15 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for the universe ' Brent It means that global conservation of energy is infinite . And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because that more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum How to understand vacuum's infinity ? Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K. = On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions: How to understand Alice's Quantumland ? How to describe the Universe as it really is ? Does somebody disagree with Planck ? Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't even be defined for the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the foundation of physics. Brent = On Feb 10, 7:46 am, socra...@bezeqint.netsocra...@bezeqint.net wrote: How to describe the Universe as it really is ? =. In his Scientific Autobiography Max Planck wrote : ' The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific pursuit in life. ' What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ? ==.. In the beginning Planck wrote, that From young years the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute, seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that the search for something absolute seemed to me the most wonderful task for a researcher. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that the most wonderful scientific task for me was searching of something absolute. ==.. And as for the relation between relativity and absolute Planck wrote, that the fact of relativity assumes the existence of something absolute ; the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it. Planck wrote that the phrase all is relative misleads us, because there is something absolute . And the most attractive thing was for Planck to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation. 3. And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics: a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,. b) The negative 4D continuum, c) The speed of light quanta, d) The maximum entropy which is possible at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K. ==. I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science. =. socratus- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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 11 Feb 2013, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
And you keep thinking there is such a thing as THE first person
view, and that might be a OK approximation in a world without
duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is
only A first person view and one view is every bit as legitimate as
another. And the only thing that turns one first person view into
another first person view is what they view, so all you're saying
is that the guy who sees Washington will be the guy who sees
Washington which is too flimsy to build a philosophy on.
Similarly there is no such thing as the result of an observation
of a quantum observable that is not already prepared in an
eigenstate of that observable.
Why? If I look to an up+down electron in the {up, down} base, *the*
result will be 'up' or will be 'down'.
From my perspective I am not certain of which result I will get, but
the result of the observation will be quite definite. That's why
quantum mechanician, like the comp predictors, introduces
probabilities. Uncertain does not mean vague. (That's a common
confusion).
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: How can intelligence be physical ?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent. It is competent in jeopardy. And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked about anything from cosmology to cosmetology. And even if the language used to communicate with Watson is far more convoluted than everyday speech and is full of analogies poetic allusions and even very bad puns Watson can still figure out what information you desire and then provide it. just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at becoming better than human doctors at diagnosing disease. http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236 Making it competent in that domain. How many domains does something need to have genius level competence in before you admit it's pretty damn smart? Even human polymaths, those who are a genius at everything have gone extinct. In the days of Leonardo da Vinci one smart man could know all the science and mathematics that there was in the world to know, but that stopped being possible about 200 years ago. Today humans need to specialize, the best even the brightest among us can hope for is to be a genius in one domain, be pretty good in another, know a little bit about 2 or 3 others, and be almost clueless about everything else. I can beat Watson in chess. I doubt that very very much. Watson, if I remember correctly, is competent in Jeopardy, and only in Jeopardy. Bruno, Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion and it required a supercomputer to do so, but that was 16 years ago and Moore's law marches on; I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997 standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue, after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added at virtually no cost. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so you don't. Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others That is ridiculous, I'll bet you personally have made that judgement at least 10 times a day every single day of your life. John K Clark -- 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.
Does p make sense?
When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) which we are arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no given condition in actual experience. All experiences are contingent upon what the experiencer is capable of receiving or interacting with. Any proposition that can be named relies on some pre-existing context (which is sensed or makes sense). The problem with applying Doxastic models to consciousness is not only that it amputates the foundations of awareness, but that the fact of the amputation will be hidden by the results. In Baudrillard's terms, this is a stage 3 simulacrum, (stage one = a true reflection, stage two = a perversion of the truth, stage three = a perversion which pretends not to be a perversion). The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the simulacrum *pretends* to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as things which they have no relationship to. Baudrillard calls this the order of sorcery, a regime of semantichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticsalgebra where all human meaning is conjured artificially to appear as a reference to the (increasingly) hermetic truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation This is made more important by the understanding that sense or awareness is the source of authenticity itself. This means that there can be no tolerance for any stage of simulation beyond 1. In my hypotheses, I am always trying to get at the 1 stage for that reason, because consciousness or experience, by definition, has no substitute. 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: How can intelligence be physical ?
Hi John, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent. It is competent in jeopardy. And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked about anything from cosmology to cosmetology. They operate in two completely different domains (min-max trees vs. semantic networks) and they are both highly specialised for their respective domains. And even if the language used to communicate with Watson is far more convoluted than everyday speech and is full of analogies poetic allusions and even very bad puns Watson can still figure out what information you desire and then provide it. just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at becoming better than human doctors at diagnosing disease. http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236 Making it competent in that domain. How many domains does something need to have genius level competence in before you admit it's pretty damn smart? It's not the number of domains, it's the potential to learn to operate in new ones. So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm as generic as the one our brains contains. Even human polymaths, those who are a genius at everything have gone extinct. In the days of Leonardo da Vinci one smart man could know all the science and mathematics that there was in the world to know, but that stopped being possible about 200 years ago. Today humans need to specialize, Some think that specialisation is for insects. Nobody needs' to do anything except to conform to some social norm. I see the benefits of specialisation (beyond being able to secure a job, which is a good part of it), but there is definitely room for generalists. the best even the brightest among us can hope for is to be a genius in one domain, be pretty good in another, know a little bit about 2 or 3 others, and be almost clueless about everything else. But they can chose which ones along the way. Intuitively, Einstein might have been a great scientist in any field. Watson and Deep Blue cannot change their minds and chose something else. I can beat Watson in chess. I doubt that very very much. Watson, if I remember correctly, is competent in Jeopardy, and only in Jeopardy. Bruno, Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion and it required a supercomputer to do so, but that was 16 years ago and Moore's law marches on; Sort of. Now it's progressing due to multi-core architectures, which one could consider cheating because algorithm parallelisation is frequently non-trivial. I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997 standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue, Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet. after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added at virtually no cost. But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so you don't. Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic. Telmo. Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others That is ridiculous, I'll bet you personally have made that judgement at least 10 times a day every single day of your life. John K Clark -- 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: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997 standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue, Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet. after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added at virtually no cost. But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so you don't. Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic. The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations - and deliberately so because we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values. That's why I usually take something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence. Being largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it acts on. Bretn -- 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 intelligence be physical ?
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997 standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue, Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet. after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added at virtually no cost. But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so you don't. Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic. The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations - and deliberately so because we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values. That's why I usually take something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence. Being largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it acts on. Just because something performs actions doesn't mean that it has values or motivations. As you say, we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values - and they don't, and they wouldn't even if we did want that, because there is no internal value possible with a machine. Values arise directly and indirectly through experience, but a machine is just a collection of parts which embody very simple experiences that never evolve or grow. Craig Bretn -- 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.
The duplicators and the restorers
Consider the following thought experiment, called The Duplicators: At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. The aliens will tell you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. These aliens possess technology far in advance of our own. They have the ability to scan and replicate objects down to the atomic level and the aliens use this technology to create an atom-for-atom duplicate of yourself, which they call you2. The aliens thank you for your assistance and return you unharmed back to your home by 5:00 PM. You ask them What about the pain experiments? and they hand you an informational pamphlet and quickly fly off. You read the pamphlet which explains that a duplicate of you (you2) was created and subjected to some rather terrible pain experiments, akin to what humans call torture and at the end of the experiment you2was euthanized. You consider this awful, but are nonetheless glad that they tortured your duplicate rather than you. Now consider the slightly different thought experiment, called The Restorers: At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. Unlike the aliens with the duplication technology (the duplicators), these aliens possess a restorative technology. They can perfectly erase memories and all other physical traces to perfectly restore you to a previous state. The aliens will tell you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. They then proceed to brutually torture you for many hours, conducting test after test on pain. Afterwards, they erase your memory of the torture and all traces of injury and stress from your body. When they are finished, you are atom-for-atom identical to how you were before the torture began. The aliens thank you for your assistance and return you unharmed back to your home by 5:00 PM. You ask them What about the pain experiments? and they hand you an informational pamphlet and quickly fly off. You read the pamphlet which explains that a duplicate of you (you2) was created and subjected to some rather terrible pain experiments, akin to what humans call torture and at the end of the experiment you2 was euthenized. You consider this awful, but are nonetheless glad that they tortured your duplicate rather than you. My questions for the list: 1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not. 2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please explain. 3. If you could choose which aliens would abduct you, is there one you would prefer? If you have a preference, please provide some justification. Thank you. Jason -- 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: The duplicators and the restorers
1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not. Yes 2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please explain. The idea that atoms can be duplicated is an assumption. If we only look at the part of a plant that we can see and tried to duplicate that, it would not have an roots and it would die. I think of the roots of atoms to be experiences through time. Just having a person who seems to be shaped like you according to an electron microscope does not make them you. 3. Both scenarios I think are based on misconceptions. Nothing in the universe can be duplicated absolutely and nothing can be erased absolutely, because what we see of time is, again, missing the roots that extend out to eternity. I find it bizarre that we find it so easy to doubt our naive realism when it comes to physics but not when it comes to consciousness. Somehow we think that the idea that this moment of 'now' is mandated by physics to be universal and uniform. Craig On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:58:49 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Consider the following thought experiment, called The Duplicators: At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. The aliens will tell you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. These aliens possess technology far in advance of our own. They have the ability to scan and replicate objects down to the atomic level and the aliens use this technology to create an atom-for-atom duplicate of yourself, which they call you2. The aliens thank you for your assistance and return you unharmed back to your home by 5:00 PM. You ask them What about the pain experiments? and they hand you an informational pamphlet and quickly fly off. You read the pamphlet which explains that a duplicate of you (you2) was created and subjected to some rather terrible pain experiments, akin to what humans call torture and at the end of the experiment you2was euthanized. You consider this awful, but are nonetheless glad that they tortured your duplicate rather than you. Now consider the slightly different thought experiment, called The Restorers: At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. Unlike the aliens with the duplication technology (the duplicators), these aliens possess a restorative technology. They can perfectly erase memories and all other physical traces to perfectly restore you to a previous state. The aliens will tell you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. They then proceed to brutually torture you for many hours, conducting test after test on pain. Afterwards, they erase your memory of the torture and all traces of injury and stress from your body. When they are finished, you are atom-for-atom identical to how you were before the torture began. The aliens thank you for your assistance and return you unharmed back to your home by 5:00 PM. You ask them What about the pain experiments? and they hand you an informational pamphlet and quickly fly off. You read the pamphlet which explains that a duplicate of you (you2) was created and subjected to some rather terrible pain experiments, akin to what humans call torture and at the end of the experiment you2 was euthenized. You consider this awful, but are nonetheless glad that they tortured your duplicate rather than you. My questions for the list: 1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not. 2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please explain. 3. If you could choose which aliens would abduct you, is there one you would prefer? If you have a preference, please provide some justification. Thank you. Jason -- 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: Does p make sense?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) which we are arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no given condition in actual experience. All experiences are contingent upon what the experiencer is capable of receiving or interacting with. I don't really follow your remaining comments, but I agree with you that the p in the Theatetical definition of knowledge makes me uncomfortable, post Popper. I'm happy for Bp p to apply to mathematical knowledge, with B semantically equivalent to prove, but when it comes to scientific knowledge, requiring absolute truth in things seems a step too far. But I have no constructive suggestions as to how to modify Theatetus :(. 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: Does p make sense?
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:28:24 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) which we are arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no given condition in actual experience. All experiences are contingent upon what the experiencer is capable of receiving or interacting with. I don't really follow your remaining comments, but I agree with you that the p in the Theatetical definition of knowledge makes me uncomfortable, post Popper. I'm happy for Bp p to apply to mathematical knowledge, with B semantically equivalent to prove, but when it comes to scientific knowledge, requiring absolute truth in things seems a step too far. I agree - for mathematical knowledge, I have no problem with it. But I have no constructive suggestions as to how to modify Theatetus :(. It may not have to be modified, but if we apply it to anything with true 1p subjectivity, I think p could be redefined in the what that I was trying to propose, i.e. instead of p, there is a logarithmic scale of B (i.e. beliefs are a perception of a set of perceptions), then B and p are understood to be relativistic measures of sense-of-sense corroboration. Craig PS With the Simulacrum stuff I was saying that it's bad juju to sneak simulation of any kind into our understanding of consciousness. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 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: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 2/12/2013 4:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997 standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue, Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet. after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added at virtually no cost. But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so you don't. Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic. The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations - and deliberately so because we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values. That's why I usually take something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence. Being largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it acts on. Just because something performs actions doesn't mean that it has values or motivations. As you say, we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values - and they don't, and they wouldn't even if we did want that, because there is no internal value possible with a machine. Values arise directly and indirectly through experience, but a machine is just a collection of parts which embody very simple experiences that never evolve or grow. More fallacious and unsupported assertions. Machines can grow and learn - though of course in applications we try to give them as much knowledge as we can initially. But that's why Mars rovers are a good example. The builders and programmers have only limited knowledge of what will be encountered and so instead of trying to anticipate every possibility they have to provide for some ability to learn from experience. Brent -- 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: Does p make sense?
On 2/12/2013 5:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) which we are arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no given condition in actual experience. All experiences are contingent upon what the experiencer is capable of receiving or interacting with. I don't really follow your remaining comments, but I agree with you that the p in the Theatetical definition of knowledge makes me uncomfortable, post Popper. I'm happy for Bp p to apply to mathematical knowledge, with B semantically equivalent to prove, but when it comes to scientific knowledge, requiring absolute truth in things seems a step too far. But I have no constructive suggestions as to how to modify Theatetus :(. Intuitively Bp p does not define knowledge. As Edmund Gettier pointed out Bp, where B stands for 'believes' as in non-mathematical discourse, can be accidental. Hence he argued that the belief must be causally connected to the fact of the proposition in order to count as knowledge. Brent -- 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: The duplicators and the restorers
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not. Yes 2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please explain. The idea that atoms can be duplicated is an assumption. If we only look at the part of a plant that we can see and tried to duplicate that, it would not have an roots and it would die. I think of the roots of atoms to be experiences through time. Just having a person who seems to be shaped like you according to an electron microscope does not make them you. 3. Both scenarios I think are based on misconceptions. Nothing in the universe can be duplicated absolutely and nothing can be erased absolutely, because what we see of time is, again, missing the roots that extend out to eternity. I find it bizarre that we find it so easy to doubt our naive realism when it comes to physics but not when it comes to consciousness. Somehow we think that the idea that this moment of 'now' is mandated by physics to be universal and uniform. What is to stop duplication of, say, the simplest possible conscious being made up of only a few atoms? Sometimes the objection is raised that an exact quantum state cannot be measured (although it can be duplicated via quantum teleportation, with destruction of the original), but this is probably spurious. If duplication down to the quantum level were needed to maintain continuity of consciousness then it would be impossible to maintain continuity of consciousness from moment to moment in ordinary life, since the state of your body changes in a relatively gross way and you remain you. So what you have to explain Craig is what you think would happen if you tried to duplicate a person using very advanced science, and why you don't think that happens when a person lives his life from day to day, having his brain replaced completely (and imprecisely) over the course of months with the matter in the food he eats. -- 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-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: The duplicators and the restorers
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Consider the following thought experiment, called The Duplicators: At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. The aliens will tell you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. These aliens possess technology far in advance of our own. They have the ability to scan and replicate objects down to the atomic level and the aliens use this technology to create an atom-for-atom duplicate of yourself, which they call you2. The aliens thank you for your assistance and return you unharmed back to your home by 5:00 PM. You ask them What about the pain experiments? and they hand you an informational pamphlet and quickly fly off. You read the pamphlet which explains that a duplicate of you (you2) was created and subjected to some rather terrible pain experiments, akin to what humans call torture and at the end of the experiment you2 was euthanized. You consider this awful, but are nonetheless glad that they tortured your duplicate rather than you. Now consider the slightly different thought experiment, called The Restorers: At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. Unlike the aliens with the duplication technology (the duplicators), these aliens possess a restorative technology. They can perfectly erase memories and all other physical traces to perfectly restore you to a previous state. The aliens will tell you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. They then proceed to brutually torture you for many hours, conducting test after test on pain. Afterwards, they erase your memory of the torture and all traces of injury and stress from your body. When they are finished, you are atom-for-atom identical to how you were before the torture began. The aliens thank you for your assistance and return you unharmed back to your home by 5:00 PM. You ask them What about the pain experiments? and they hand you an informational pamphlet and quickly fly off. You read the pamphlet which explains that a duplicate of you (you2) was created and subjected to some rather terrible pain experiments, akin to what humans call torture and at the end of the experiment you2 was euthenized. You consider this awful, but are nonetheless glad that they tortured your duplicate rather than you. My questions for the list: 1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not. 2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please explain. 3. If you could choose which aliens would abduct you, is there one you would prefer? If you have a preference, please provide some justification. The two experiments are equivalent. Rationally, you should not have a preference for either - though both are bad in that you experience pain but then forget it. -- 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-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.
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce, a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician, and professor at Harvard University, stated that it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth. # Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin said, Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity =.. it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’ . . . but . . . ‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence. ===.. On Feb 12, 7:35 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ? ==. Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum. I want throw light on this Vacuum. Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K : a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K, b) QED theory because this theory explain interaction photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too, c) Euler’s equation: e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the negative vacuum T=0K can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’ which Euler described by his formula: e^ i(pi) + 1= 0. d) The global conservation of energy is infinite . And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because that more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum How to understand vacuum's infinity ? Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K. This physical parameter is the key to understand the essence of Existence. =. Without Vacuum T=0K there isn’t Physics, there isn’t Philosophy of Physics. . Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. ==. On Feb 12, 7:15 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for the universe ' Brent It means that global conservation of energy is infinite . And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because that more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum How to understand vacuum's infinity ? Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K. = On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions: How to understand Alice's Quantumland ? How to describe the Universe as it really is ? Does somebody disagree with Planck ? Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't even be defined for the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the foundation of physics. Brent = On Feb 10, 7:46 am, socra...@bezeqint.netsocra...@bezeqint.net wrote: How to describe the Universe as it really is ? =. In his Scientific Autobiography Max Planck wrote : ' The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific pursuit in life. ' What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ? ==.. In the beginning Planck wrote, that From young years the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute, seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that the search for something absolute seemed to me the most wonderful task for a researcher. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that the most wonderful scientific task for me was searching of something absolute. ==.. And as for the relation between relativity and absolute Planck wrote, that the fact of relativity assumes the existence of something absolute ; the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it. Planck wrote that the phrase all is relative misleads us, because there is something absolute . And the most attractive thing was for Planck to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation. 3. And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics: a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,. b) The negative 4D continuum, c) The speed of light quanta, d) The maximum entropy which is possible at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K. ==. I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science. =. socratus- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: The duplicators and the restorers
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:09:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: 1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not. Yes 2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please explain. The idea that atoms can be duplicated is an assumption. If we only look at the part of a plant that we can see and tried to duplicate that, it would not have an roots and it would die. I think of the roots of atoms to be experiences through time. Just having a person who seems to be shaped like you according to an electron microscope does not make them you. 3. Both scenarios I think are based on misconceptions. Nothing in the universe can be duplicated absolutely and nothing can be erased absolutely, because what we see of time is, again, missing the roots that extend out to eternity. I find it bizarre that we find it so easy to doubt our naive realism when it comes to physics but not when it comes to consciousness. Somehow we think that the idea that this moment of 'now' is mandated by physics to be universal and uniform. What is to stop duplication of, say, the simplest possible conscious being made up of only a few atoms? Because I suspect that conscious beings are not made of atoms, rather atoms exist in the experience of beings. Experiences cannot be duplicated literally, because I suspect that unique is the only thing that experiences can literally be. Sometimes the objection is raised that an exact quantum state cannot be measured (although it can be duplicated via quantum teleportation, with destruction of the original), but this is probably spurious. If duplication down to the quantum level were needed to maintain continuity of consciousness then it would be impossible to maintain continuity of consciousness from moment to moment in ordinary life, since the state of your body changes in a relatively gross way and you remain you. Can the year 1965 be duplicated? If you wanted just one millisecond from 1965. What I am suggesting is that the entire assumption of the universe as bodies or particles be questioned. The universe is unique variations of a single experience, with a continuum of 'similarity' in between, contingent upon the experiential capacity of the participant. So what you have to explain Craig is what you think would happen if you tried to duplicate a person using very advanced science, If you tried to duplicate a person's body, then you get an identical twin - my guess is probably a dead one. and why you don't think that happens when a person lives his life from day to day, Because the cells of the body exist within experiences, not the other way around. We aren't spirits or bodies, we are lifetimes. having his brain replaced completely (and imprecisely) over the course of months with the matter in the food he eats. It's like saying the cars on a freeway are replaced constantly so it is no longer a freeway. What makes the traffic is the participation of drivers who employ vehicles to take them places. Understanding the phenomenon as just a statistical pattern of positions and frequencies, or of objects in a spatial relation are both interesting and useful, but without the underlying sensory-motive grounding, it's ultimately meaningless to the big picture. Craig -- 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-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.
