Can anyone explain this ?
One of the great mysteries of liberalism is the contradiction in its political stance concerning rich corporations. On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives to lower corporate taxes. But on the other hand, it will bail out rich corporations such as General Motors to prevent their failure. How's that again ? Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/14/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/13/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Unless we question causality itself. Which we should. This is why Science is not the only way to pursue knowledge and Philosophy is necessary. Causality isn't even an important concept in fundamental physics. All the equations are time reversal (or CPT) invariant. But philosophers resisted this view. I'm aware, but it is an important concept for all the sciences at higher levels of abstraction, starting with chemistry. Until fundamental physics can provide us with workable theories for the meso world we live in, we have a problem. What knowledge do you think has come from philosophy? You are aware that by asking this question you are already doing philosophy? Some of my favorites: the scientific method, logic, the systematisation of fallacies, Descarte's cogito, theories about knowledge itself (Epistemology). The entire intellectual foundation of western civilisation may make it to the list too, but it's a bit hard to enumerate all the ideas... Brent The philosophy of science is just about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. --- Steven Weinberg Funny as it might be to treat scientists as a biological class of organisms, this is a bit silly. Popper's principle of falsifiability seems rather useful to me. Occam's razor is not that bad either. Cheers, Telmo. -- 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: Can anyone explain this ?
Roger, Most corporations do not pay any taxes at all On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: One of the great mysteries of liberalism is the contradiction in its political stance concerning rich corporations. On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives to lower corporate taxes. But on the other hand, it will bail out rich corporations such as General Motors to prevent their failure. How's that again ? Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/14/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Can anyone explain this ?
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 7:56:35 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: One of the great mysteries of liberalism is the contradiction in its political stance concerning rich corporations. On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives to lower corporate taxes. Liberals see that wealth inequality is a critically important issue in the US. “For every one dollar of assets owned by a single black or Hispanic womanhttp://www.insightcced.org/uploads/CRWG/LiftingAsWeClimb-WomenWealth-Report-InsightCenter-Spring2010.pdf, a member of the Forbes 400 has over forty million dollarshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/richest-people-america-forbes-400_n_1896828.html .” America Split in Two: Five Ugly Extremes of Inequalityhttp://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17878-america-split-in-two-five-ugly-extremes-of-inequalityhttp://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17878-america-split-in-two-five-ugly-extremes-of-inequality But on the other hand, it will bail out rich corporations such as General Motors to prevent their failure. Whoever is in power is going to support big bailouts, as the conservatives proved in 2004 when they supported TARP. Nearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows. Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half -- 47 percent -- think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue. - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544.html Craig How's that again ? Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/14/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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: Losing Control
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.? This is more or less planned for the FOAR list. In a nutshell, using some image, comp says that the big truth (about consciousness and matter) is in your head. With you = any universal machine. So you can program a universal machine to look inward, and extract its theory of consciousness and matter. To test comp, it remains to compare the matter part the machine found in her head with the empirical facts. This has been done, to some degree, and thanks to QM, it fits rather well up to now. That is does comp predict something that is not also predicted by science? ? Comp is part of science. It is a theory (synonym: belief, hypothesis, guess, idea, etc.). Physical science, seen as TOE, like with physicalism, presupposes a physical reality, but if comp is correct, the physical reality is a stable pattern emerging from coherence conditions in machines' self- reference, and this is reducible to number theory, or to any theory rich enough to emulate a Turing universal machine. What comes to my mind is consciousness. Comp starts from some assumption on consciousness, (like its invariance for digital substitution *at some level*), and then it is later plausibly explained in term of some truth that some machine can know in some sense, yet not prove or justify to other machine. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena. Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so (and in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a level of digital substitution. I think you will not convince Craig, because he assumes from the start mind and matter and some relation/identification between them, in a non computational framework. But you are right, and patient, by showing him that he is not valid when arguing that comp *has to* be wrong. 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. -- 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic, otherwise it does not agree with experiment. The universal wave evolves deterministically, but *we* are in the superposed and differentiating branches, so we feel like there is an indeterminacy in the 3p sense, but without collapse, it is only a first person indeterminacy of the same kind of comp (UDA step 3). With comp, we are automatically in the superposed state brought by the infinitely many universal numbers competing to generate our state. Indeterminacy is predicted once we look around below our substitution level. The sharable experiment comes from some first person plural indeterminacy. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- 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. 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. 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:18, Richard Ruquist wrote: Is 10^122 or 10^1000 large enough? Richard I think that 10^1000 is large enough to make the Ramanujan limited sum (limited to 10^1000) as large as (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + ... + 10^1000). I'm afraid that to get the -1/12, you need to go to infinity, and even do some detour in the complex plane. I find alluring that, in the Riemann sense, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + ... = -1/12 But that 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + ...still diverge, although algorithmically slowly. Bruno On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 Well, with some convergence criteria! And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? A very large number. Bruno On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- 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. -- 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. 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. 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:21, Richard Ruquist wrote: I have tried to study the UDA but lack sufficient understanding to see how the UDA could compute an infinite number of paths or universes as in the diffraction example I discussed. I will remind this in later explanations. Dovetailing is a technic allowing to emulate digital parallelism with a single processor. The basic idea is that you can back again and again on the initial programs. You go through the programs p1, p2, p3, ... in that way: p1, p2, p1, p2, p3, p1, p2, p1, p2, p3, p4, p1, p2, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p1, ... and each time you emulate for some finite time the activity, and you save the continuation to resume that computation at the next meeting in that listing. In that way, you will run all programs, even all those which never stop. If you wait long enough, you will get the emulation of the linear evolution of the rational heisenberg matrix describing the Milky Way Observable, at all substitution level possible, and thus emulating notably many diffraction processes. Church thesis ensures that you do enumerate all programs with the pi, once you have chosen a Turing universal system (like LISP, or the game- of-life pattern, or just some degree 4 diophantine polynomial). Bruno On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:07, Richard Ruquist wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite- photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? No, it uses the first person indeterminacy in self-multiplication, which explains where the quantum wave comes from. I have explained this on this list and published it a long time ago. That is why I told you that if you take comp into consideration, you must derive QM and perhaps string theory (if it is correct) from addition and multiplication of the natural numbers. I see you have not yet studied or grasped the UDA :) Bruno Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? Hi Richard, Ok, but in that case physics is deterministic, just hard to compute. How do we then deal with the fact that two photons under the precise same conditions can follow two different paths (except for some hidden variable we don't know about)? I'm not a physicist and way over my head here, so this is not a rhetorical question. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. -- 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,
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Hi Bruno, Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy* obtains, it does not give a satisfactory explanation of 'shared experience'. It seems to me that you are right, in so far as, the necessity of such, but I argue that that alone is insufficient. You might want something like the axiom of choice and foundation to force the collection of *some first person plural indeterminacy* into a partition, but I argue that this is equivalent to assuming that satistiability obtains for collections of propositions automatically - something we know it false! It is for this reason that I reject the timelessness of Platonism and adopt a 'Process view where Becoming is ontologically fundamental and time is defined locally by the 1p measures of observers. On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic, otherwise it does not agree with experiment. The universal wave evolves deterministically, but *we* are in the superposed and differentiating branches, so we feel like there is an indeterminacy in the 3p sense, but without collapse, it is only a first person indeterminacy of the same kind of comp (UDA step 3). With comp, we are automatically in the superposed state brought by the infinitely many universal numbers competing to generate our state. Indeterminacy is predicted once we look around below our substitution level. The sharable experiment comes from some first person plural indeterminacy. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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 a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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,
Reliability of neuroscience research questioned
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2013/9282.html New research has questioned the reliability of neuroscience studies, saying that conclusions could be misleading due to small sample sizes. A team led by academics from the University of Bristol reviewed 48 articles on neuroscience meta-analysis which were published in 2011 and concluded that most had an average power of around 20 per cent – a finding which means the chance of the average study discovering the effect being investigated is only one in five. The paper, being published in Nature Reviews Neurosciencehttp://www.nature.com/nrn/index.htmltoday [10 April], reveals that small, low-powered studies are ‘endemic’ in neuroscience, producing unreliable research which is inefficient and wasteful. It focuses on how low statistical power – caused by low sample size of studies, small effects being investigated, or both – can be misleading and produce more false scientific claims than high-powered studies. It also illustrates how low power reduces a study’s ability to detect any effects and shows that when discoveries are claimed, they are more likely to be false or misleading. The paper claims there is substantial evidence that a large proportion of research published in scientific literature may be unreliable as a consequence. Another consequence is that the findings are overestimated because smaller studies consistently give more positive results than larger studies. This was found to be the case for studies using a diverse range of methods, including brain imaging, genetics and animal studies. Kate Buttonhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/people/katherine-s-button/overview.html, from the School of Social and Community Medicine, and Marcus Munafòhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/people/marcus-r-munafo/overview.html, from the School of Experimental Psychology, led a team of researchers from Stanford University, the University of Virginia and the University of Oxford. She said: “There's a lot of interest at the moment in improving the reliability of science. We looked at neuroscience literature and found that, on average, studies had only around a 20 per cent chance of detecting the effects they were investigating, even if the effects are real. This has two important implications - many studies lack the ability to give definitive answers to the questions they are testing, and many claimed findings are likely to be incorrect or unreliable.” The study concludes that improving the standard of results in neuroscience, and enabling them to be more easily reproduced, is a key priority and requires attention to well-established methodological principles. It recommends that existing scientific practices can be improved with small changes or additions to methodologies, such as acknowledging any limitations in the interpretation of results; disclosing methods and findings transparently; and working collaboratively to increase the total sample size and power. -- 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 world is in the brain
On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:47:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: With comp, matter relies on the numbers law, or Turing equivalent. Matter also relies on geometry, which comp cannot provide. ? Does that mean you think that comp can generate geometry, or that matter doesn't relay on geometry? comp can generate geometry does not mean something clear. I think its pretty clear. Without a printer or video screen, my computer cannot generate geometry. Why? (printer and video screen are not geometry). There are program able to solve geometrical puzzle by rotating mentally (in their RAM, without using screen, nor printer) complex geometrical figure, ... It doesn't matter how much CPU power or memory I have, the functions will come no closer to taking on a coherent geometric form somewhere. I can make endless computations about circles and pi, but there is never any need for any literal presentation of a circle in the universe. No actual circle is present. Not sure I have ever see an actual circle anywhere, nor do I think that seeing proves existence ... But what can be shown is that in the comp theory, you can assume only number (or combinators) and the + and * laws, this generates all the dreams, which can be shown to generate from the machine points of view, geometry, analysis, and physics. That's only because you have given + and * the benefit of the dream to begin with. No. I begin with assuming that the brain is Turing emulable. It is not that obvious to get everything (brain and consciousness) from + and *. Comp is tautology. If comp was tautology, I would like you to attribute to my sun in law, the one with the digital brain, a little more tautological consideration. You should accept that he has consciousness then. But of course that is not the case, as comp might be false, logically. Indeed, it can be shown refutable, and if the evidences were that physics is Newtonian, I would say that comp would be quite doubtful. Then we can compare physics with the empirical data and confirm of refute comp (but not proving comp). Since already Diophantus, but then systematically since Descartes, the relation between geometry and arithmetic are deep and multiple. It is a whole subject matter, a priori independent from comp. What is the relation between comp and geometry? It extends already the very many relation between number and geometry discovered by Descartes. Most elementary geometries on the reals are decidable, and so are common toys in the machine's dreams, then it is like an old couple, the relations are for the best and the worth. For example the fact that the following diophantine equation has no non trivial solution x^2 = 2*y^2---is equivalent with the fact that the diagonal of a square, in the euclidienne plane, is incommensurable with the side of the square. They have no common unities. You can sum up 90% of math by the study of the relation between the numbers and the geometries. 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: Scientific journals
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. Hitler's birthday was April 20, so was soul singer Luther Vandross and actor George (Mr. Sulu) Takei. Einstein's birthday was March 14, so was Dr. Seuss and Billy Crystal. Leo (War and Peace) Tolstoy and Honey Boo Boo were both born on August 28, and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both born at exactly the same time, same day same year. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. They would be a lot more impressive if these predictions had been made before the moon landings and assassination not after. It's easy to make predictions after the fact. And I stand by what I said before, after these embarrassingly stupid comments I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. 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.
Re: Scientific journals
On 14 Apr 2013, at 01:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:47:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. After several statements of this sort I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. That is not valid. If it's not valid then I do see how somebody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. But no, I believe I'm a better judge of what i think than you are and I really think that I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. You can always go at the meta-level and ask yourself how could a machine asserts things like that. The surprise here is that self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things than Craig, and of course this refutes his no-comp conclusion or prejudice. So if self-referentially correct machines can assert quite similar things that I do, what about the self-referentially correct machines can assert similar things to what Bruno asserts? If one machine claims that the other machine's reports are self-referential artifacts, then how can you say that self-referentially correct machines assert anything in particular? Where are you getting the sense of machine consensus when comp would mean that humans, often incapable of consensus, would contribute evidence to support or contradict any position or belief? When a machine is self-referentially correct, it is always relative to some other universal machine. That is why in the formal theory we must start from one Turing universal system, like (N, +, *). Also, a belief can be both self-referential and referential. In I see the moon, there is a simultaneous reference and self-reference. Both can be correct. About astrology, I suspect it was a kind of provocation only. Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. If you aren't interested, then go on assuming that it is idiotic, it makes no difference to me. Give me any date, and any program doing a chart from a date, and I will give you *many* examples which fits. To make your point, you must not look at the chart of a small sample of people by date, but on a rather large sample. Now, if this has been done, give me the references. Because statistics can be misused very easily too. And for someone seeming to dislike determinacy, what would that mean? A new way to discriminate people? Bruno Craig Bruno It is not because a statement made by an entity is not correct that all statements (or all reasonings) made by that entity is not correct (or valid). Given the fact that you are mortal and only have a finite amount of time to listen to anybody say anything if you knew that somebody passionately believed that the earth was flat would you really carefully listen to what he had to say about ANYTHING? Belief in astrology and numerology is just as bad as a flat earth. To be sure, I would not defend that precise statement made by Craig, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn't defend a statement that was even approximately like the one made by Craig, otherwise I've been on the wrong list for over a year. Many scientists have rejected the existence of lucid dreams, only because it was published in a journal of parapsychology. I have no trouble with the idea of lucid dreaming, even Feynman said he could do it in the 1930's when he was a student, but given their track record I wouldn't trust one word I read about anything in a journal of parapsychology, so there is no point in my reading them. 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-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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 4/14/2013 6:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/13/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ... What knowledge do you think has come from philosophy? You are aware that by asking this question you are already doing philosophy? Some of my favorites: the scientific method, logic, the systematisation of fallacies, Descarte's cogito, theories about knowledge itself (Epistemology). The entire intellectual foundation of western civilisation may make it to the list too, but it's a bit hard to enumerate all the ideas... Brent The philosophy of science is just about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. --- Steven Weinberg Funny as it might be to treat scientists as a biological class of organisms, this is a bit silly. Popper's principle of falsifiability seems rather useful to me. Occam's razor is not that bad either. Useful summaries of practice and explication of science, but are they *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: Scientific journals
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:39:06 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Astrology is interesting to me because if there were nothing to it than the charts of important figures and events in history, and members of families would show no meaningful patterns beyond what is expected by coincidence and confirmation bias. If you look at the actual charts and analyze them you will find an unfailing and obvious correspondence even subtracting out a generous confirmation bias. Look them up. See what Napoleon's chart looks like, and Hitler, and Einstein. Hitler's birthday was April 20, so was soul singer Luther Vandross and actor George (Mr. Sulu) Takei. Einstein's birthday was March 14, so was Dr. Seuss and Billy Crystal. Leo (War and Peace) Tolstoy and Honey Boo Boo were both born on August 28, and Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both born at exactly the same time, same day same year. First of all, it's not just the same day of the year, the exact location, year, and time factor in also - but even identical twins are not the same person. The themes involved are about polarity, so that twins often oppose each other as far as which extremes they express...and these are just themes, not controlling mechanisms. Astrology and numerology both are not supposed to be predictive sciences, they are reflective arts. As for Lincoln and Darwin, they are not a bad example at all. They were not born at the same time or place, but they still embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. (from http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_infoproducts_id=461zenid=rg6mgiba3utmerg3b69k0ci3u6) While the coincidence of these two men being born on exactly the same day might fill astrologers with glee, further reflection points to many parallels and intersections in their lives. In this unique approach to history and biography, historian David R. Contosta examines the lives and careers of Lincoln (the political rebel) and Darwin (the scientific rebel), and notes many surprising and illuminating points of comparison. - Lost their mothers in childhood and later lost beloved children at young ages. - Had strained relations with their fathers. - Went through years of searching for a direction to their lives. - Struggled with religious doubt. - Were latter-day sons of the Enlightenment who elevated reason over religious revelation. - Suffered from severe bouts of depression. - Were ambitious as well as patient, with sure and steady mental powers rather than quick minds. - Possessed an excellent sense of pacing that allowed them to wait until the time was ripe for their ideas and leadership. Looking at their charts: [image: http://judecowell.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/lincoln-natal-assassination.jpg] http://catalystastrology.com/images/charlesdarwin.jpg With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun, it is unsurprising that they would share a lasting legacy which is both emotionally contentious and powerfully progressive. There are a ton of things there. The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisces is very much about redemption and themes of devotion and duty...self-sacrifice. I don't know if I trust the time on Darwin's chart, but if it's in the neighborhood of right, then it would make sense that he put science first while Lincoln, with his Sun rising, put his leadership role first. They are all readily available online. Look up the Moon landing and JFK assassination. If you are interested, then don't take my word for it. They would be a lot more impressive if these predictions had been made before the moon landings and assassination not after. It's easy to make predictions after the fact. The idea that astrology is about prediction is one which has been promoted by tabloid horoscope columns, but that is not a good way of using it or of understanding what it is really about. It can be predictive in the sense that meteorology is predictive, but overall, as with the weather, someone would be better advised taking their cues from their direct perception most of the time, and taking the astrological themes as a kind of supplemental source. Astrology is not about cause and effect, it is about archetypal themes. And I stand by what I said before, after these embarrassingly stupid comments I don't see how anybody who values rationality can take anything that Craig Weinberg says seriously. Astrology is extremely rational, which is why scientific development tends to begin with some form of astronomy-based divination. Your bigotry is well known on this list, so I welcome your seal of disapproval as a way to encourage narrow-minded
Re: The world is in the brain
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:27:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:47:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: With comp, matter relies on the numbers law, or Turing equivalent. Matter also relies on geometry, which comp cannot provide. ? Does that mean you think that comp can generate geometry, or that matter doesn't relay on geometry? comp can generate geometry does not mean something clear. I think its pretty clear. Without a printer or video screen, my computer cannot generate geometry. Why? (printer and video screen are not geometry). Printers and video screen have no other purpose other than to manifest geometric forms in public. There are program able to solve geometrical puzzle by rotating mentally (in their RAM, without using screen, nor printer) complex geometrical figure, ... That's what I'm saying. All geometric function can be emulated computationally with no literal geometry. The puzzle shapes aren't literally in the RAM. There is no presentation of shape in that universe, and the addition of shape (from screens or printers) would add nothing to that computation. It doesn't matter how much CPU power or memory I have, the functions will come no closer to taking on a coherent geometric form somewhere. I can make endless computations about circles and pi, but there is never any need for any literal presentation of a circle in the universe. No actual circle is present. Not sure I have ever see an actual circle anywhere, nor do I think that seeing proves existence ... I don't think that there is 'existence'. There is seeing, feeling, touching, etc. I don't understand what you mean by not being sure if you have seen an actual circle anywhere. see? Those are actual circles that you see on your screen. The computer doesn't see those though. It doesn't see the similarity between o,O,0,*O*,*o*, etc. To the computer there are different quantities associated with the ASCII characters, different codes for font rendering as screen pixels or printer instructions, etc, but unless you are running an OCR program, the computer by default has no notion of visual circularity associated with . But what can be shown is that in the comp theory, you can assume only number (or combinators) and the + and * laws, this generates all the dreams, which can be shown to generate from the machine points of view, geometry, analysis, and physics. That's only because you have given + and * the benefit of the dream to begin with. No. I begin with assuming that the brain is Turing emulable. It is not that obvious to get everything (brain and consciousness) from + and *. It's one thing to assume that the brain is Turing emulable, but another to assume that interior experience is isomorphic to brain activity. My view is that it is not. To the contrary, exteriority is the anesthetic, orthomodular reflection of interiority. This orthomodularity is total, so that it circumscribes both arithmetic truth and ontological realism entirely. http://multisenserealism.com/2013/04/14/1060/ Comp is tautology. If comp was tautology, I would like you to attribute to my sun in law, the one with the digital brain, a little more tautological consideration. You should accept that he has consciousness then. He doesn't have consciousness, but he has the capacity to broadly and deeply enrich our consciousness. I give him the appropriate consideration, he gets a nice juicy retro-memory implant of a generic steak eating experience - free of charge! But of course that is not the case, as comp might be false, logically. Indeed, it can be shown refutable, and if the evidences were that physics is Newtonian, I would say that comp would be quite doubtful. Then we can compare physics with the empirical data and confirm of refute comp (but not proving comp). Since already Diophantus, but then systematically since Descartes, the relation between geometry and arithmetic are deep and multiple. It is a whole subject matter, a priori independent from comp. What is the relation between comp and geometry? It extends already the very many relation between number and geometry discovered by Descartes. Most elementary geometries on the reals are decidable, and so are common toys in the machine's dreams, then it is like an old couple, the relations are for the best and the worth. For example the fact that the following diophantine equation has no non trivial solution x^2 = 2*y^2---is equivalent with the fact that the diagonal of a square, in the euclidienne plane, is incommensurable with the side of the square. They have no common unities. You can sum up 90% of math by the study of the relation between the numbers and the geometries. It seems
