Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 02 Dec 2013, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against that! Of course his Universal Dovetailer is pretty super too. In my view, these are all just hypothetical models and whatever is in them is implicitly natural if the model is right. If Zeus existed, he'd be part of nature (just an extended notion of nature). Bruno's theory explains some aspects of consciousness, e.g. something are incommunicable, but it doesn't do so well at explaining matter or even other things about consciousness. At least it explains the appearance of matter. With the Matter assumption, and comp, this is put under the rug. In fact I know only comp for explaining matter. It is not good (today) to do prediction, but that was not the goal, which is to get a coherent picture of reality which explains both mind and matter in the frame of computationalism. I'm not even convinced by his movie graph argument (or Mauldin's Olympia) because they seem to require that all possible contingencies be anticipated. But maybe I just don't understand them. We can come back on this someday. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Could comp possibly work without the infinities.? At the ontological level, it works without the infinities. It still use the infinity of finite things: 0, 1, 2, 3, ... At the epistemological level, that is at the level of the beliefs of the universal numbers, they have to use many infinities to develop theories about themselves and make them meaningful. With comp finite/infinite is aboslute, but enumerable/non-enumerable is relative (like in the model theory of set theory, cf Skolem) Bruno Richard On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. I don't have any prejudice. I am just saying that IF comp is correct, then matter or the observable is given by some infinite sums on infinitely many universal numbers. And so it is testable, accepting the most standard definitions in the crossed fields. It too might have personal aspect. It sure has. (It is, roughly, and plausibly, the nuance between Bp Dt, (no first personal aspect) and Bp Dt p, p sigma_1 (first personal aspect)) They give arithmetical quantizations, and it is a technical difficulty to see if they emulate a quantum machine or not. I have no prejudice at all. I am agnostic on both matter and god. I just try to put the pieces of the puzzle in the correct place, assuming an hypothesis which helps for intuitive reasoning, and their translation in math. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel. That is a result of having separated theology from science. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Which theologians? There is no agreement among theologians. There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among Quantum physicists. The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open- mind that is needed in science to progress. Absence of agreement is what makes science possible. And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology. They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would. By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of credulity/spirituality. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled famous theologians and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur. Googling might not be enough, or take more time. Years ago, when I google on snus (oral tobacco), the 20 first sites where the one reporting the most fake papers you can find on oral tobacco. Given that on god we are brainwashed 1430 years more than on drug, it is hardly astonishing that a simple Googling will reflect the lies instead of the serious inquirers. I think it is your very attitude which helps the bandits to keep theology as a manipulative incorrigible machine. Your God has no overlap with the common usage of the Big Daddy in the sky. I think it has enough common points, I think, especially from the points of view of comparative theology. Of course it is an open problem if it is a Daddy or a Mommy or even if that question makes sense. With comp, it is not clear if X can be a person, or can be conceive by a machine as being a person. The common points are, that God is a X such that - X has no name, no description, - X is responsible for your life and lives, the biology, the psychology, the physics, What does 'responsible' mean? It can be simple causality: The wind was responsible for the tree falling. Or it can imply an ethical choice: Madoff was responsible for the deception. The latter meaning slips in the idea that X is a person. Or it can be a logical reason. Or something else. -
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Hi Richard, On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:54, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or traditionI let God counts the genuine believers :) Richard: A too friendly priest told me that I was an atheist when I was in college and I agreed. I stopped going to church and he got in trouble. I remained an atheist for almost two decades, mainly because I could not see anyway I could have an afterlife, until I read about OBE. So then I came to believe in the supernatural- that's all background. I don't believe in the supernatural, because I don't believe in the natural to begin with. supernatural is like added artificial magic to correct the defect of the natural, which is naturally person and consciousness elimininativist. Now coming from atheism, no one religion seemed just right for me although the eastern religions, even the atheistic ones, were most appealing. But by then I had married a former jewess and conversion to Judaism seemed most appropriate, you know, for the family. So I began 3 years of study in a Reform Temple under a wannabe-orthodox rabbi a couple of towns away. The point of this little story is that when I and my wife joined the Reform Temple in our home town (Lexington, Massachusetts) my new friends were amazed, esp since I was a rocket scientist, that I was a believer (in the supernatural-not necessarily god). Turns out that the entire membership was atheistic as far as I could tell, although it was not PC to mention it. Atheists or agnostic? Many people make the confusion, and some atheists vindicate it, and distinguish weak atheism (agnosticism) and strong atheism (belief that God = Matter, and no possible other God). I think Judaism, and probably Islam, are slightly less incorrect than Christianism, but their mystic parts (Cabbala, Sufi, Augustin) are closer to neoplatonism and so, to comp (if you can agree with the definitions or meta-definition). Unfortunately they have secret doctrine, and it is hard to delineate what is secret for absolute theological reason (like in the comp G* minus G, or like in any negative theology), and what is secret to avoid trouble with the local authorities, and ... the family ... Bruno On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naïve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. So it is important to say the idea is a fairy tale. Not the idea of God, as used by theologians., only the idea of God, as used in don't ask by the demagogs. If your read the theologian or the mystics, you get a different picture. Probably different of what those using religion to control people want you to not see at all. For you religion connotes with Jesus, the Churches, etc. To me it is more a probably sumerian idea, (?), Pythagorus, Plato, Plotinus, and it did not end but lives dissipates in a large part of the abramanic religion, and then looks close to what the self- referentially correct told us about the possible truth about themselves. The scientific approach to Gods is to say they are a failed hypothesis - not to redefine the word. Only retarded creationists would use God as an hypothesis to explain the facts, as God is usually considered as what we can
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 21:52, LizR wrote: On 3 December 2013 09:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/2 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 3 December 2013 09:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2013 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing belief to atheist people (especially belgians)... I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they are atheist. Call it ultimate reality. It is OK, until you grasp enough of comp to see that this rings a bit faulty. There is no problem to call it ultimate reality, as long as you are open it might have personal aspects, and have no prejudice on wht that ultimate reality can be (with this or that hypothesis). Then you should have no prejudice toward accepting matter as the possible ultimate reality. It too might have personal aspect. I believe Bruno's only prejudice about this is he thinks it leads to a contradiction. Assuming computationalism... I was taking that as read. But yes, Bruno also thinks that if you don't assume computationalism, you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards consciousness, and I imagine he's prejudiced against that! If you don't assume computationalism you have to adopt a supernatural stance towards Matter. (That's the point), and on consciousness. I don't understand what definition of 'supernatural' you're using? Are you simply saying that if X is taken as fundamental, and therefore unexplained, then X is supernatural? So long as matter is something we can manipulate I don't see how it can be considered supernatural (c.f. Dr. Johnson). I mean that supernatural use some magic, or some actual non Turing emulability, not being recoverable by the FPI. Supernatural = 1) non Turing emulable, 2) non FPI recoverable. You need to work again the UDA step 8 to understand that any notion of primitive matter need a supernatural power, in that sense, if that matter can be related to any conscious experience. Machines cannot distinguish an arithmetical reality from anything reified as more real than numbers. Generally I see the natural/supernatural distinction as admitting a large grey area between black and white. Planets were once supposed to be supernatural beings, i.e. they were immortal and lived above the sphere of corruption in heaven. When they were found to obey fairly simple, precise laws of motion, they became part of nature. I expect the same will happen with human consciousness. It seems mysterious and inexplicable by physics now - but it may not always be so. I don't see how, unless you extend the sense of physics up to accept that the TOE is arithmetic, and physics is a branch of machine's psychology. Primitive matter seems to me mysterious and inexplicable, but comp explains why machines cannot avoid the beliefs in its appearance. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:57, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our imagination. I seem to restrict, but comp is an assumption of finiteness, which augment the unlimited possibilities. Non comp is what limits the possibility. Little things go through *more* holes than big things. I am only more open minded on the unlimited possible relation between machines and truth. Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY work? You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. Do you have support for YOUR version of consciousness as the ONLY possible input for Matter (as we THINK of it TODAY?) ? I don't understand. And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth? I have no pretension at all on any truth. I explain two things: - 1) IF we are machine, THEN physics IS a branch of numbers bio-psycho- theology (a part of arithmetic). -2) and this makes the assumption (of being a machine) refutable, as I provide a constructive means to derive physics from arithmetic. 1) is given by the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), and 2) is provided by the translation of the UDA in arithmetic (AUDA, the universal machine interview). May be it is the human lack of imagination of some of the humans of today which prevents them to listen to the machines of today, and to see that they saw what Plato and the mystics seems to have seen too. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary, shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas, histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do. In which theory? When we talk on Matter or primitively material universe, we deal also with ideas, beliefs, assumptions or myth (even dogma, for many, or even unconscious dogma, for those who sleep in this subject). God is not an alien, although our comp-finiteness could make us confuse a God with some possible alien. In fact if we give a name to a God, we make it into a sort of alien, hiding some possible God. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. So you think that your belief in COMP is product of a computation, so it is a belief, but not a true meta-belief of the meta-numeical reality, so it is not worth a belief fo Bruno Marchall?. suc(1010011) sorry, a meta-glith in the UDA. Please call the measurers to fix it out. 2013/12/4 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:57, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I expected better from you. You seem to restrict the unlimited possibilities into the PRESENT limitations of our imagination. I seem to restrict, but comp is an assumption of finiteness, which augment the unlimited possibilities. Non comp is what limits the possibility. Little things go through *more* holes than big things. I am only more open minded on the unlimited possible relation between machines and truth. Do you have any support for the exclusivity of computationalism over ALL (so far maybe not even thought about) systems that MAY work? You talk like if I was believing in comp, or defending that comp is true. I don't do that at all. Do you have support for YOUR version of consciousness as the ONLY possible input for Matter (as we THINK of it TODAY?) ? I don't understand. And: I have no idea what would you cover by YOUR truth? I have no pretension at all on any truth. I explain two things: - 1) IF we are machine, THEN physics IS a branch of numbers bio-psycho-theology (a part of arithmetic). -2) and this makes the assumption (of being a machine) refutable, as I provide a constructive means to derive physics from arithmetic. 1) is given by the Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA), and 2) is provided by the translation of the UDA in arithmetic (AUDA, the universal machine interview). May be it is the human lack of imagination of some of the humans of today which prevents them to listen to the machines of today, and to see that they saw what Plato and the mystics seems to have seen too. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On 04 Dec 2013, at 03:17, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? It would help to close the circles, and to understand where the quantum information can be explained in elementary arithmetic. The thought experiment is of the deduction type. No amount of facts can change it, but those facts can give help to progress. How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? By deriving the physics from machine's psychology as UDA shows the necessity to do. What do you want more than what I have already explained? The problems are now math problem in arithmetic. Not sure about what you seem to miss. Perhaps the FPI, like most scientists. Are you OK with all steps in the UDA. This really should answer your question. Best, 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
Yes there is no loss of information* at the lowest level,* that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life I 2013/12/4 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there is no entropy increase and no heat. Feynman already outlined how this would have to be done in quantum computers. I think the problems are far from solved. Black holes, in the semi-classical approximation seem to destroy information and there are various proposals for preserving the unitary evolution of quantum mechanics, but none that are completely satisfactory. Brent What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- 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. 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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Two more remarks: I´m astonished contemplating how people can contemplate with horror the belief in a god that they thing that it does not exist and accept the belief in worldly lies and praise completely invented myths about their favorite heroes Even if they know that are false. That Kim Jon Il wrote a mean of tree books a day is incredible for them but there are equally fantastic histories and Myths widely believed that would make Chesterton crap up. The wishfulthinker fall in tears when pronouncing his sacred capitalized worlds: People, Democracy, Equalty Human Rights and so on. In the past, Socialism, Worker Class and such craps motivated the same heart lifts. Today even the Terrorists invoke what they call Democracy with passion. But in his country, like in any other, the same families alternate in government, with a few exceptions, no matter the kind or regime and the political party. All are equals except that some are more equal than others. Perhaps things are closer to the Ancient Regime rather than to the myths of his utopic society. The more the utopics are in power, the more the ancient regime (that they had in the imagination) returns. Perhaps all such elevated concepts are not part of the reality but ideological constructions and their most known advocates, just power seekers that may deserve the worship of the wishfulthinkers? I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without a form of religion or religions like you can not live alone. 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active. -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Advaita Vedanta and Leibnizian Metaphysics
Advaita Vedanta and Leibnizian Metaphysics This is a huge, daunting subject which I can only scratch the surface of. A book or PhD thesis could easily be written on it and do a much better job than I can here. Keep in mind also that I am not an expert on Advaita. A brief summary of the Advaita Vedanta is given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Philosophy ' Advaita (Sanskrit: not-two) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness. Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidya (knowledge) of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Attaining this liberation takes a long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. ' Here we will only roughly compare the metaphysics of Leibniz with that of the Advaita, not the religious aspects of Advaita. Both are essentially Idealist. In general, Brahman, being the highest Reality, corresponds to Plato's One, the Creator, but Brahman has many more aspects than Plato's One, which I leave to other scholars to elucidate. Atman corresponds roughly to Leibniz's monad for a person. The relation of a person's monad (which I will call Self, which is what Leibniz calls a person's spirit,l meaning the conventional soul) ) to Plato's One (Leibniz's rough correspondence to Brahman) is similar to Advaita's goal of unity or Advaita between Atman and Brahman, but this is not a fixed goal in Leibniz, it happens at a rapid pace in rapid sequential steps in Leibniz in everyday perception and action, in which the Self is a passive slave to the One, its master. So in Leibniz there is never a complete fusion of Self and the One as desired in Advaita, The One is the active agent in periodic communion with the One much like a shepherd with his sheep. In Leibniz there is imperfect communion of the Self with other selves, which Christianity calls the 'communion of the saints'. By imperfect is meant that as in all human perception, there is some distortion to various degrees, depending on the person, which limits the range of inter-communion with other saints and the environment. Salvation is not clearly defined in Leibniz, as far asI have been able to find out, but certainly communion of the Self and the One is found pleasurable and enlightening. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
And yet...
This world of dew is only a world of dew - and yet, and yet... -- Kobayashi Issa, after the death of his daughter. This world of quantum states is only a world of quantum states - and yet, and yet... -- Rex Allen, after a very cold shower. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Alberto, I agree with you that religion cannot be avoided in this sense. Here's a funny example: The Leipzig secular solstice celebration: http://lesswrong.com/meetups/u6 Here's a video of some guy who's trying to become a priest for atheists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vIFloLATxo (I still have some hope that the guy is a comedian, in which case he's a genius) One of the most perverse tricks that the system played on us, in my opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should raise the kids. Sure, people spend a couple of hours with them between days spent working mostly unnecessary jobs, but the bulk of modern education is provided by institutionalised school and TV. I agree with the importance of teaching kids math, reading comprehension, etc, but school is just terrible. It also teaches us to tolerate absurd levels of boredom, to replace thinking with accepting authority and it creates an artificial reward system, where one can get addicted to a feeling of accomplishment without accomplishing anything. Of course, all these things make us more compliant in later on accepting lives without meaning. Democracy is almost funny. People believe in this myth that it enforces the will of the people, but if you ask anyone individually you will find that you cannot easily find a person whose opinion ever influenced anything whatsoever. It's even hard to have an opinion. The better part of their days people are slaves, and when tired they are spoon fed badly disguised world views sprinkled over mindless entertainment. Everyone should have at least one psychedelic experience. This would change the world faster and better than any ideology. Telmo. On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: Two more remarks: I´m astonished contemplating how people can contemplate with horror the belief in a god that they thing that it does not exist and accept the belief in worldly lies and praise completely invented myths about their favorite heroes Even if they know that are false. That Kim Jon Il wrote a mean of tree books a day is incredible for them but there are equally fantastic histories and Myths widely believed that would make Chesterton crap up. The wishfulthinker fall in tears when pronouncing his sacred capitalized worlds: People, Democracy, Equalty Human Rights and so on. In the past, Socialism, Worker Class and such craps motivated the same heart lifts. Today even the Terrorists invoke what they call Democracy with passion. But in his country, like in any other, the same families alternate in government, with a few exceptions, no matter the kind or regime and the political party. All are equals except that some are more equal than others. Perhaps things are closer to the Ancient Regime rather than to the myths of his utopic society. The more the utopics are in power, the more the ancient regime (that they had in the imagination) returns. Perhaps all such elevated concepts are not part of the reality but ideological constructions and their most known advocates, just power seekers that may deserve the worship of the wishfulthinkers? I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and dangerous religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not live without a form of religion or religions like you can not live alone. 2013/12/1 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Government by the Rule of Law (of physics) I would say. There is much much in the relation between the republican idea of society, and pragmatical atheism of the contractualists Hobbes, rousseau, Locke (let the state work without religion), that later became ideological (atheism is the religion of the state). The idea of ruling society by laws was probably inspired by newtonian phisics (but not by newtonian theology) and the market economy. what is initially science or experience can become a myth that organize a society. But this gobernment by rules is a hopeful ideal. In other words, a myth. But a myth necessary for the state religion. Whenever there are laws there is a sovereingh lawyers. The people in democracy is such lawyer say the modern wishfulthinker. That is nothing but another two myths. hypostases, something that does not exist bu in the mind by an effort of faith for the purpose of social cooperation. So to summarize, the human mind can not live withouth myths. If he reject the given ones, he invent its own. 2013/12/1 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Because there are no obvious signs of government in the universe, I would say. On 2 December 2013 10:29, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: How can a grown man be an atheist ? An atheist is a person who believes that the universe can function without some form of government. How silly. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- http://www.avast.com/
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this post over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If God exists as mathematics, infinite sets, or neutrinos, how can we deal with it? What evidence would it take to demonstrate convincingly, to you, Dr. Marchal, that Drelb is the Great One? What mathematical proof would it show you that Pi, out to a quadrillion integers is God, or Phi? To 'touch faith' as the olde British 80's rock song (personal Jesus) stated, we must somehow interact with the 'other.' The other has to be someone we know is true, tactile, rational. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 5:32 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 22:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: You can believe in God in the same sense that we can believe in super intelligent extraterrestrials. A.C. Clarke, and Skeptic magazine editor, Michael Shermer, both, have mentioned this in comparison. Until someone or something shows up in a acknowledgeable was as, both highly, intelligent and extraordinary, shows up, around our home planet, we are dealing with ideas, histories, and creative writing, which is not a terrible thing to do. In which theory? When we talk on Matter or primitively material universe, we deal also with ideas, beliefs, assumptions or myth (even dogma, for many, or even unconscious dogma, for those who sleep in this subject). God is not an alien, although our comp-finiteness could make us confuse a God with some possible alien. In fact if we give a name to a God, we make it into a sort of alien, hiding some possible God. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On 03 Dec 2013, at 08:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: just so they and their close friends can say, We believe in God rationally Come on. No serious theologian would say that. they know you need grace, luck, or a bit of salvia divinorum, which seems to cure atheism according to some reports. So are these people not serious theologians: William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, Rowan Williams. Who counts as a serious theologian? Is it only those that agree with you? No, they are those who are able to put an interrogation mark behind their public assertions, and are open to revise their statement in a debate. Bruno PS I have to go and will comment later other posts (busy day). Thanks for the patience. I like very much that thread, which is in between purely vocabulary discussion and perhaps an important idea on reality Brent We can't believe in God rationally, nor can we believe in the moon rationally, but we can study the consequences of our theories. And when we become rational, as you know, we are lead from questions to questions. -- 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite catapulting Einstein to fame. Back then the measurement was made right at the limit of what was possible with 1919 technology, since then it has been repeated many times with vastly greater precision and Einstein has always passed the test with flying colors. someone predicted black holes way before Einstein, too, on the basis of Newtonian gravity and the measurement of c - although without realising the full implications ... Mitchell???). The earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he called them dark stars, however it had very different properties from a modern Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's Newtonian dark stars I could not see it, but unlike a real Black Hole, I could obtain a picture of it and print it in the newspaper, I'd just have to get closer in a powerful spaceship. I could even land on the classical dark star, get a sample of it and then return it to Earth, that sort of thing would be impossible with a real Einsteinian Black Hole. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. Say hi to it and it can hear you. Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there is no entropy increase and no heat. But if it's reversible then there is no irreversible change in information either (such as what you'd get if you erased information) and Landauer's principle still holds true. So if you make a irreversible change in information you make a change in a physical quantity (like heat), and if you make a irreversible change in a physical system (like rotating something in 3 dimensions) you change the information it encodes. What more would you need to be able to say that information is physical? 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
Yes not to speak so ignorantly, but what particle caries heat, in the same sense that photons carry e-m, the boson, radioactivity, the proton, essentially the strong force, and the graviton-gravity aka mass. Is there a Heat on, the wiggle of the neutron, using lots of photons to carry heat? -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 6:38 am Subject: Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Yes there is no loss of information at the lowest level, that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life I 2013/12/4 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across thispost over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. But if the processes are reversible (and they can be) then there isno entropy increase and no heat. Feynman already outlined how thiswould have to be done in quantum computers. I think the problems are far from solved. Black holes, in the semi-classical approximation seem to destroy information and thereare various proposals for preserving the unitary evolution ofquantum mechanics, but none that are completely satisfactory. Brent What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory?
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Jason- Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. Me. Oh mighty overlord and master, Drelb, we welcome your magnificence to our foul and benighted world! Great, Drelb! Make me your loyal taskmaster, and I shall put the others to work building enormous monuments to your shinning, glory! Henceforth, Christmas shall be known as the 25th of Drelb. Now back to work you scum, or you'll feel Drelb's and my, lash! -Original Message- From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. Say hi to it and it can hear you. Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a pattern physically? What is our neurochemistry doing recognizing something. Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its information? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation. Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to the presented football, but the represented football would still be ontologically physical as a visual experience. Craig I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/4/2013 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Dec 2013, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/3/2013 10:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2013, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: wants to be worshiped, judges people and rewards and punishes them. That's a legend used to put people in place so that they will be worshiped, so that they can judged other people, reward and punish them. Why do you credit such things. Why can you believe that we should listen to them? You are the one giving them importance, and by arguing against a scientific approach to God, souls, afterlife, meaning, etc. you will maintain the current fairy tale aspect in theology, and you will contribute in maintaining them in power. I don't credit such things. So why do you come back on it? Why not abstract ourself from the fairy tales, once and for all, if we don't credit them. Because billions of people believe (or pretend to believe) the fairy tales and want to make public policy based on their book of fairy tales. In the U.S., before some courts ruled that leading prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, the fundamentalist churches did not participate in politics. The held themselves to be concerned with an unearthly, spiritual realm that transcended politics. But the prayer in school ruling caused them to become activists and they were seen as resource by the conservative Republicans that had taken over southern politics after the civil rights act of 1964. Since then they have campaigned politically to outlaw abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, teaching evolution, deny global warming, and expand Israel. That is a result of having separated theology from science. I think you have a pollyannish view of history. Theology, the belief in superhuman gods, preceded science as a disciple by millenia. Theology was based on faith and priests and dogma, and it supported the state. Theologians held secret, esoteric discussions of the gods, but if they deviated much from the theology of the state they were punished (c.f. Socrates and your namesake). Science was only able to come into existence as an empirical search for truths when the Church was split and weakened and theology was left to apologetics. I don't know how you imagine science could have developed if it had separated from theology - nor how it could proceed now by taking up theology. Note that there have been scientific tests of theology: specifically of the efficacy of healing prayer. So it is not that scientists reject dogmas out of hand. But the idea is important because so many people believe it And they are wrong on many things, but perhaps not on everything, so why not try to show them a less naive approach? Their own theologian are not that naďve. And their are many approaches and conception of God, Gods, and Goddesses, It or That. Which theologians? There is no agreement among theologians. There are agreements and there are disagreements. Also among Quantum physicists. Not about the experimental facts. The problem is that we have no come back to the free spiritual open-mind that is needed in science to progress. Absence of agreement is what makes science possible. And the testability of theories. And large sects reject even the idea of relying on theologians; they believe that they should only rely on their own reading of their holy books (remember the protestant reformation?). And even among those who do rely on a priesthood to interpret for them, I don't see that the priesthood has communicated the God of your theology. They would lose their job. But if theology come back to academy and the classroom, with the scientific attitude, they would. By mocking theology you keep it in the hand of the exploiters of credulity/spirituality. Also, to be sure, I know Christians who are real atheists. They keep the label by solidarity with the community or the family or tradition. I let God counts the genuine believers :) - and you are the one that gives them support by writing that God is really an important rational concept, using the name of the bearded man in the sky they believe in when you really mean something completely different. Only the fairy tale aspect is different, but if you read the theologians, you might revise that opinion. I think you only read theologians that you agree with. I googled famous theologians and find Christian and Jewish apologists, not seekers for ur. Googling might not be enough, or take more time. Years ago, when I google on snus (oral tobacco), the 20 first sites where the one reporting the most fake papers you can find on oral tobacco. Given that on god we are brainwashed 1430 years more than on drug, it is hardly astonishing that a simple Googling will reflect the lies instead of the serious inquirers. I think it is your very attitude which helps the bandits to keep
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
The heat is measured in terms of energy. and this energy is proportional to the agitation of the particles. But a single particle moves. It is not hot. it´s energy is 1/2 m v2: Its cinetic energy. when you have zillions of particles of a gas or a liquiid or a solid in a recipient, it has heat proportional to the mean cinetic energy of these particles by a constant discovered by Boltzman. He used ordinary statistics to derive it. That was the foundation of statistical mechanics. Entropy is also a macroscopical magnitude, like heat. there is a statistical way to calculate entrophy by calculating in which way we can arrange N particules in different speeds and positions compatible with each observable macroscopical state. that is called the partition function. Leonard Susskind has lectures on statistical mechanics and explain all of this. 2013/12/4 spudboy...@aol.com Yes not to speak so ignorantly, but what particle caries heat, in the same sense that photons carry e-m, the boson, radioactivity, the proton, essentially the strong force, and the graviton-gravity aka mass. Is there a Heat on, the wiggle of the neutron, using lots of photons to carry heat? -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 6:38 am Subject: Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Yes there is no loss of information* at the lowest level,* that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life I 2013/12/4 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/3/2013 6:17 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
A good exposition. It doesn't address the questions of the alignment of thermodynamic, radiation, and spacetime expansion though. This paper may be of interest: Arrows of Time in the Bouncing Universes of the No-boundary Quantum State James Hartle http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Hartle_J/0/1/0/all/0/1,Thomas Hertog http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Hertog_T/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 9 Apr 2011 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1733v1), last revised 16 Apr 2012 (this version, v3)) We derive the arrows of time of our universe that follow from the no-boundary theory of its quantum state (NBWF) in a minisuperspace model. Arrows of time are viewed four-dimensionally as properties of the four-dimensional Lorentzian histories of the universe. Probabilities for these histories are predicted by the NBWF. For histories with a regular `bounce' at a minimum radius we find that fluctuations are small at the bounce and grow in the direction of expansion on either side. For recollapsing classical histories with big bang and big crunch singularities we find that the fluctuations are small near one singularity and grow through the expansion and recontraction to the other singularity. The arrow of time defined by the growth in fluctuations thus points in one direction over the whole of a recollapsing spacetime but is bidirectional in a bouncing spacetime. We argue that the electromagnetic, thermodynamic, and psychological arrows of time are aligned with the fluctuation arrow. The implications of a bidirectional arrow of time for causality are discussed. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.1733v3.pdf Brent On 12/4/2013 3:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Yes there is no loss of information/at the lowest level,/ that is at the quantum level . But at the lowest level, there is NO notion of HEAT. only speeds and momentums of elementary particles. HEAT and temperature and entropy are statistical parameters, words used in the macroscopical laws to define sum of energies and mean energies or disorder of particles because the energy of each particle is not know at the human scale but each particle carry all the information intact. THe post is talking about the loss of information contained in a macrostate consisting of a phisical bit of information stored in a macroscopical object. For example a gate. The conservation of information on the laws of physics refers to the information of the microstates. not macrostates, whose information can be lost. and loss of information in a macrostate generate increase of entropy by the following reason: in terms of state, an increase of entropy is produced when we pass from a macrostate with less possible microstates to other with more possible microstates. At the beginning we have one macrostate , for example 1 formed by all the possible configurations of electrons in a gate when it stores a 1. when erased, we have a macrostate that may be one of the possible configurations of electrons that may be in a gate with a 1 OR a 0 or a neutral state. So the entropy has increased because the new macrostate (erased) has more microstates than the original. the disorder has increased. How that entropy increase is produced in the erase depend on the process. It may be by means of a short circuit in the gate. The electrons circulate and hit the atoms producing heat. the potential electric energy of attraction produces cynetic energy in the atoms and heat. The microstate-macrostate transition is the same case that happens when we have a gas of different types confined in a room and other room empty. When we communicate the rooms, the gas expand and fill both rooms, the entropy increased because the final macrostate admits more possible configurations speeds and positions of particles in the two rooms . Something similar, not equal, happens with gas of electrons in a gate. Measured in termodinamical terms, the temperature decreased and the entropy measured in termodinamical terms delta Q/T has increased. Q is the thermal energy or heat. However the process is different. in the first case, potential energy is dissipated and there is increase of Q, in the other the potential energy is dissipated against the vacuum and produces reduction of T. Q/T seems to be proportional to the number of microstates in a macrostate. The availability of information in the form of macrostates when entropy is low is what permits living beings to compute in order to anticipate the future and survive. That can only happen in the direction of entropy increase. I wrote something all of this here: http://www.slideshare.net/agcorona1/arrow-of-time-determined-by-lthe-easier-direction-of-computation-for-life -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. Brent Say hi to it and it can hear you. Drelb can even copy us into his galaxy remotely, after discovering us. So the existence of such hyper-intelligences, no matter how remote (even in entirely causally separate universes) is not something that can have no effect on you or your future. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a pattern physically? What is our neurochemistry doing recognizing something. Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its information? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation. Speaking with rigurously as far as i can, the information depends on the granularity of the states that you consider. If you are contemplating the Premier Leage along the history looking at the leage winners of each year, the information is that. If you zoom in to a particular year and see the classification, you have another level of information. if you proceed day by day, tean after team, player after player yo will have more and more detailed states. In Statistical Mechanics, the information is contemplated at the molecular level.. There are higuer levels: at the atomic, quark and superstring level, that is supossedly the ultimate level, where the units of distance energy etc are called Planck units. But in ordinary matter where the atoms are individual, not in the form of plasma the statistical mechanics level is well defined. that base level is called the microstate. But information in the usual sense is refered to states of macroscopical entities, like the speed of my car, or the height of a building, not the position and speed of the particles of the car or the building. the building can be hot or cold and the microstates can vary. but I don´t care. However the total information at the microstate level is constant. But the macrostate can loose information. a building can fall as a result of a eathquaque. in this process of loss of information the entropy grows. Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to the presented football, but the represented football would still be ontologically physical as a visual experience. Craig I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation towards questions of information theory? How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy, information, and the physical evolution of the universe? Cheers, Dan -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:21:32 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head, dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its information? This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a pattern physically? What is our neurochemistry doing recognizing something. Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its information? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation. Speaking with rigurously as far as i can, the information depends on the granularity of the states that you consider. If you are contemplating the Premier Leage along the history looking at the leage winners of each year, the information is that. If you zoom in to a particular year and see the classification, you have another level of information. if you proceed day by day, tean after team, player after player yo will have more and more detailed states. In Statistical Mechanics, the information is contemplated at the molecular level.. There are higuer levels: at the atomic, quark and superstring level, that is supossedly the ultimate level, where the units of distance energy etc are called Planck units. But in ordinary matter where the atoms are individual, not in the form of plasma the statistical mechanics level is well defined. that base level is called the microstate. But information in the usual sense is refered to states of macroscopical entities, like the speed of my car, or the height of a building, not the position and speed of the particles of the car or the building. the building can be hot or cold and the microstates can vary. but I don´t care. However the total information at the microstate level is constant. But the macrostate can loose information. a building can fall as a result of a eathquaque. in this process of loss of information the entropy grows. Even if you have the total information at every state, what does it really tell someone who wants 'information about New York City?' Without smuggling in top level correlations, we can't answer even simple questions like 'What's a nice place to eat?' or 'are New Yorkers rude?' To me, it is clearly the 'levels' which are more primordial and more informative than the theoretic invariances across the levels. Without the aesthetics, information is no different from entropy. Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical? We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football) within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to the presented football, but the represented football would still be ontologically physical as a visual experience. Craig I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going for. To be the Dawkins of physics. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information is physical. Hey everyone, Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) -- I came across this posthttp://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/over at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be claiming that the relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in terms of physical processes. What does this do to your thought
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... Quentin 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 12/4/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. So he suffers FPI too. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: And yet...
...and yet, and yet, one has this ineffable feeling there's more to life...? On 5 December 2013 03:02, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: This world of dew is only a world of dew - and yet, and yet... -- Kobayashi Issa, after the death of his daughter. This world of quantum states is only a world of quantum states - and yet, and yet... -- Rex Allen, after a very cold shower. -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Advaita Vedanta and Leibnizian Metaphysics
This sort of thing always depends on how much credence you can give to ancient religion and philosophy. Yes, [whatever ancient belief] is almost like [some modern science] ... but generally when you look closely it's about as related as van Daniken's ancient astronauts are to modern ones. So we tend not to give ancient teachings any credence -- yet it's at least possible that mystical experiences give some sort of insight into the truth of existence, and if so, that some of this has been retained when the self-interested and literal minded came along and turned it into organised religion. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 5 December 2013 04:24, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi Alberto, Everyone should have at least one psychedelic experience. This would change the world faster and better than any ideology. It was saying that sort of thing that got Doctor Timothy Leary locked up, bless him. At about my age he was dangling from a rope making his escape over the wall at some penitentiary, rather than sitting around the fire with his kids smoking dope. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 5 December 2013 04:24, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: One of the most perverse tricks that the system played on us, in my opinion, was in convincing people to accept that the state should raise the kids. Sure, people spend a couple of hours with them between days spent working mostly unnecessary jobs, but the bulk of modern education is provided by institutionalised school and TV. I agree with the importance of teaching kids math, reading comprehension, etc, but school is just terrible. It also teaches us to tolerate absurd levels of boredom, to replace thinking with accepting authority and it creates an artificial reward system, where one can get addicted to a feeling of accomplishment without accomplishing anything. Of course, all these things make us more compliant in later on accepting lives without meaning. The purpose of school is to raise the next generation of wage slaves, so it's geared to whatever that requires. Democracy is almost funny. People believe in this myth that it enforces the will of the people, but if you ask anyone individually you will find that you cannot easily find a person whose opinion ever influenced anything whatsoever. It's even hard to have an opinion. The better part of their days people are slaves, and when tired they are spoon fed badly disguised world views sprinkled over mindless entertainment. I think I love you. I've been saying this sort of thing for years, but rarely have I managed to do it so articulately. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: doesn't dark matter falsify general relativity?
On 5 December 2013 06:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: the 1919 eclipse data is actually somewhat equivocal, despite catapulting Einstein to fame. Back then the measurement was made right at the limit of what was possible with 1919 technology, since then it has been repeated many times with vastly greater precision and Einstein has always passed the test with flying colors. That's right, yes. Indeed the most accurate measurement ever made is, I believe, a test of GR involving gravity waves from a binary neutron star. My point was that the eclipse result wasn't - apparently - quite as cut and dried as it was presented, but the person who made it (was that Eddington?) was keen to show Einstein correct. someone predicted black holes way before Einstein, too, on the basis of Newtonian gravity and the measurement of c - although without realising the full implications ... Mitchell???). The earliest reference I can find is 1783 by John Michell, he called them dark stars, however it had very different properties from a modern Black Hole. If I was far from one of Michell's Newtonian dark stars I could not see it, but unlike a real Black Hole, I could obtain a picture of it and print it in the newspaper, I'd just have to get closer in a powerful spaceship. I could even land on the classical dark star, get a sample of it and then return it to Earth, that sort of thing would be impossible with a real Einsteinian Black Hole. That's the one. It was used in a story by Brian Aldiss, I guess before black holes became widely known about in SF circles (which was probably thanks to Larry Niven). Of course one could only land on it if one could withstand the gravity, and only take off if one could travel faster than light - but although those would have been ridiculous goals in Newtonian theory, they weren't considered physically impossible. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 2:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. So he suffers FPI too. That is my understanding. I'm not sure if I would call it suffering though. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Measure is relative, it doesn't drop while you approach death. Probabilities add up to one... And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On 5 December 2013 19:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, it doesn't drop while you approach death. Probabilities add up to one... And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. In fact you don't approach death, assuming QTI, -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. On 5 December 2013 20:48, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for 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. 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. 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
Re: Atheism is wish fulfillment
2013/12/5 LizR lizj...@gmail.com Well all the possibilities ever experienced by an human beings anywhere in the multiverse add up to a vanishingly small measure compared to all the parts of the multiverse where we didn't evolve, Earth didn't form, etc. So any measure we are aware of is always going to be infinitesimal from a God's eye perspective - and 100% from our own. As I said, only relative measure count... ASSA is useless and wrong. When I talk about low measure, I alway talk about relative measure from your current state. Quentin On 5 December 2013 20:48, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/5 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: Measure is relative, Yes, so your current measure of next finding yourself in a Drelb continuation, is relatively low compared to the measure of you still being conscious on Earth. But if you point a quantum gun at your head and pull the trigger 30 times, your Earth-continuation measure continues to fall, it is reduced by a factor of a billion. At this point, your Drelb-based extensions may become relatively higher than your Earth-based extensions, and therefore you would be likely to experience a transition to those realms of higher measure. it doesn't drop while you approach death. Your measure drops whenever you make yourself more unique, You doesn't, you always have an infinity of continuations. especially in those instances where you survive dangerous situations (such as falling from a height, or significantly aging). Your relative measure doesn't drop, but the outcome to explain you're still alive can become more strange... and drelb based extensions should not become much higher, simple physics should still have higher measure to explain your unlikely survival. Probabilities add up to one... Which probabilities are you referring to here? The probabilities applies only on your continuation, the partitioning of the infinity of continuations where you're alive are the probabilities to find yourself in such continuation or such other, those adds up to one... the partitioning of Drelb world should always be low measure... even near death. Quentin And by no cul de dac you should not count where you 're dead. Subjectively you cannot die. And in an infinitely large and varied universe, many strange things may happen. Jason Le 5 déc. 2013 03:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2013/12/4 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/4/2013 10:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Theory? I am betting neither Clarke the writer, nor Shermer, the Atheist, has put a lot of intellectual efforts in their perspectives/statements. Clarke was aiming at human perspective. Shermer was trying to shoot down the attitudes of the religious, by re-phrasing Clarke's Law. Could God be Drelb, the famous hyper-intelligence from the Sombrero Galaxy. If this is so, what can we do about it? If Drelb is hyper-intelligent, it can simulate all of Earth and learn everything about us and everything we do. That seems inconsistent with the idea that we are infinitely many threads of computation in multiverses. FPI would make us random to Drelb too. There are also infinite numbers of Drelb though too. Drelb, by constructing a physical replica of Earth, is in a sense is running a quantum emulation of all possibilities of Earth, and Drelb, by observing it, is split into as many copies as there are possibilities for the simulation to diverge. Such should have a very low measure facing the UD or comp is false... As you approach death and your measure drops, strange things may result. Remember there are an infinite number of such Drelb-like entities, none can change mathematical truth so none can affect whether or not your existence, but they can provide continuation paths for 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. 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
