Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 17 Dec 2013, at 15:37, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Jason, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Truth. Truth =/= Proof. Ummm, as I see things: Proof = Truth. If that is true, it is not provable (with proof = I prove). Bp - p belongs to G* minus G. Truth, taken as a priori, is indistinguishable from unverified belief and slides into appeals to authority. We can both believe that truth is bigger than proof, and yet keep asserting only proved statement. My question to you is when was it determined that N was or was not prime? Any time we re-check the calculation we get the same result. Presumably even causally isolated observers will also get the same result. If humans get wiped out and cuttlefish take over the world and build computers, and they check to see if N, is prime is it possible for them to get a different result? How could I possibly know? It is not my burden to show. It is something your world view ought to be able to account for rationally or meaningfully, otherwise you might look to replace that world view with one which can more adequately address these questions. I agree! I am only claiming that if an actual computation of the primeness is not done then the plain cannot be true in that universe, otherwise we are appealing to a consciousness that is somehow beyond computation. I don't understand your point. How are we appealing to a consciousness beyond computation by assuming a number can be prime or not prime irrespective of our capability or willingness to prove it? If we assume that becuase we can verify that some large but accessible number is or is not prime can give us the ability top bet (ala Bruno) that inaccessible large numbers are or are not prime, but to claim that they actually are prime (or not) is a bridge too far. Let me ask two questions which might help clarify my understanding of your view: 1. Is it possible for someone, in some universe, somewhere to compute (without error) and find some number N to be prime, while another person elsewhere finds it is not prime? Sure! Only if that universe is capable of supporting the computation required. My example of a universe of 16 objects is a case where it is not computable. Computability is an absolute notion, thanks to Church Turing thesis. What you talk about is not computability, but computability by a little automaton. You could say that addition is not a computable function because my cup of coffee cannot compute it. What you are doing is a change of meaning of a well established notion. 2. If your answer to question 1 is no, then what is the mechanism through which consistency is maintained between these causally isolated observers (who may even be in different universes?) Good question! How is consistency maintained globally? Does it really need to be? Consider the SAT problem of Boolean logics... We should not expect the mere possibility of solving hard problems to support the belief that the solutions are accessible. As I see things, it is accessibility to solutions that matters here. That is tractability, not computability. This is why I have a problem with Platonism: It postulates the existence to Forms and proposes a mystical mechanism to explain the accessibility of the Forms. On the contrary. Computationalism assumes only that the brain works like a machine, without added magic. Then some magic remains, but that is a consequence of the richness of the elementary rule for a universal system, like the closure for diagonalization. Bruno My contention is that it is not possible to get a different result, that N was always prime, or it was always not prime, and it would be prime (or not prime) even if we lacked the means or inclination to check it. Such is unprovable. Merely claiming that some X has some property does not make it so. If it did not already have the property X before it was observed, then why is it that aliens a trillion light years beyond our cosmological horizon get the same result when they compute whether or not N is prime? Does the first entity to compute it collapse the mathematical wave function? You are reasoning with the assumption of a global time... :-( Given GR and QM's empirical support, why do you use assumptions that are proven to be false? There is no absolute before and after. Sorry. We need to be consistent. Jason Jason On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: So you are arguing that doing the computations is what makes a number prime or not? When does the number first become prime, is it when the first person anywhere in the universe checks it? What about people beyond the cosmological horizon that compute it,
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:32, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum worlds, although Everett didn't write about multiple worlds. Everett only considered one world and wrote about the relative state of the observer and the observed system. In some ways this is more fundamental because in principle the different worlds of MWI can interfere with one another. That they usually don't is a statistical result. (Many worlds is just a nice (and roughly accurate) description, like Big Bang (better than Small Hiss) or Black Hole (better than Very Faintly Glowing Region of Infinite Gravity :) I think that's an unfair criticism of Copenhagen. Deterministic theories just push the problem back in time. Ultimately there is either an uncaused event or an infinite past. So there is not great intellectual virtue in rejecting uncaused events. Quantum mechanics is an interesting intermediate case. It has randomness, but randomness that is strictly limited and limited in such a way that it produces the classical world at a statistical level. The problem is pushed back onto whatever is considered fundamental. If there is an original event, it is only uncaused if it doesn't emerge naturally from (for example) the equations that are believed to describe the universe. One can say the same about an infinite past. Your own theory also introduces uncaused events, namely the computations of a universal dovetailer. The whole idea of everythingism was inspired by QM, but QM itself doesn't entail that everything happens. If you measure a variable you only get eigenvalues of that variable - not every possible value. If you measure it again you get the same eigenvalue again - not any value. I was given to believe that the computations of the UD aren't events, and that they simply exist within arithmetic as a logically necessary consequence of its existence. Did I get that wrong? I wouldn't say wrong. It depends on whether you think There exists a successor of 2. implies that 3 exists. 3 *is* the successor of 2. Personally I think it is a confusion to say that a logical formula is satisfied by X is the same as saying X exists in the ontological sense. Existence is always theoretical, and is treated by satisfaction of a formula beginning by Ex. What I would expect a logician to say. But Bruno Marchal exists because we can point to him and say, That's Bruno Marchal. You can't do that. You might happily points to my body, but that's not me. You keep the Aristotelian view that reality is WYSIWYG, but with computationalism, reality is not WYSIWIG. You indexical that's bruno is locally well justified through the arithmetical indexicals Bp, Bp p, etc.) If *everything* is theoretical then theoretical loses it's meaning. I realize that makes everythingists happy, but I'm dubious. With computationalism, we have no choice, I think (and have argued a lot). I guess you are missing some point. On the contrary, self-duplication explains the appearance of such indeterminacy, without adding any further assumptions. Well, the existence of self-duplication, even via Everett, is a further assumption. Surely the existence of duplication (rather than self- duplication) arises from the equations? So one has self- duplication as a consequence, to the same extent that one has it within ones own personal past? Or have I misunderstood that too? (Or are you just talking about the sort of assumptions we have to make all the time anyway?) Occam favors it. Your belief in 3) substitutes a very simple explanation by a call to a form of built-in-non-explainable magic. No more magic than a UD. Why is the UD magic? (Is arithmetic magic?) It's hypothetically generating all possible worlds, but where is it? It's in Platonia. Platonia = Arithmetic. You need just to believe that 2+2=4 is true. You need this Platonia to just define what is a computation. But I don't have to believe true=exists. If you believe that 2+2=4, then it is just usual first order logic to accept Ex(x + x = 4) It's the word made flesh. Sounds a lot more magical Once you believe in flesh, but in comp, there is only appearance of flesh, and we explain where that appearance comes from (completely). No, you don't. You explain that it *must* come from computation (given your assumptions) but that is very different from showing that it *does* come from computation. The proof is entirely constructive in the math part. Of course it leads to a sequence of complex problems in mathematic (even arithmetic). I have just translated a problem (in philosophy or theology) into another (purely
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2013 1:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Dec 2013, at 00:58, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2013 2:05 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 December 2013 10:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Is that another way of saying you don't think Arithmetical Realism is correct? (Which is fair enough, of course, it is a supposition.) Yes. I think it is a questionable hypothesis. Yes, I think so too on days with an 'R' in them. Well if you don't think AR is correct, then of course it sounds magical (although that leaves the problem of how those equations which somehow (magically?) control the behaviour of atoms actually do so.) I don't think they 'control' them, I think they describe them (to the best of our knowledge). Notice that this explains where the laws of physics come from; they're invented by us. Bad phraseology on my part. What I meant was, there is a possible problem of unreasonable effectiveness that AR purports to explain, but which otherwise remains magical. Obviously the laws of physics as written down and taught and understood by us were invented by us, but we have this hope that they correspond to something real out there, and it's at least possible that the something real out there comes in a form (something like) the laws we've invented to describe it, and may be in a form exactly like some laws we will one day invent. On that glorious day it may seem like splitting haris to say that mass, energy, space and time are in some magical way different from the equations describing them, assuming such equations exist. True, the models might be accurate. But even if they are we can't know it with any certainty. Except our own consciousness here and now, we cannot have any certainty, in any scientific matter. Science is doubt, and leads to more doubt, always. That's one thing that bothers me about Bruno's definition of knowledge as true belief. We may have true beliefs by accident. Yes. But notice that the 'laws of physics' don't describe everything - in general they rely on 'boundary conditions' which are not part of the laws. Most theories of cosmogony put forward rely some randomness, e.g. 'quantum fluctuations', as boundary conditions. I don't believe in any 3p-randomness. I mean, no more than in Santa Klaus. That's why I consider Everett to be the first sensical version of QM. Not believing can be just as dogmatic as belief. Everett doesn't pretend to fix boundary conditions. Indeed. There are none in his formulation. All solutions exists and interfere. Secondly, note that even as physics becomes more successful in predictive power and more comprehensive in scope, it's ontology changes drastically, from rigid bodies to classical fields to elementary particles to quantum field operators. What stays roughly constant are the experimental facts. Yes. A reason more to appreciate that with comp, the ontology can be reduced to its minimal (0 and successor, of K and S and their applications). Bruno, has a good point about 'primitive matter'. It doesn't really mean anything except 'the stuff our equations apply to.'; but since the equations are made up descriptions, the stuff they apply to is part of the model - not necessarily the ding an sich. To say physicist assume primitive matter is little more than saying that they make models and some stuff is in the model and some isn't - which of course is contrary to the usual assumption on this list. :-) Yes, some people on this list seem to read far more into the existence of matter (energy, etc) than that it's just the object referred to in some equations. (Arguments that the UD couldn't really exist because there aren't enough resources in the universe to build one, for example.) Bruno et al may also have a good point about the (lack of) supervenience of mind on matter, although I'm still trying to get my head around that one (appropriately enough). I don't think the supervenience of mind on material processes is any more problematic than its supervenience on computation. Supervenience of mind on material processes is refuted by the UDA. I don't think it does. You might elaborate. It just doesn't make any sense anymore, unless you put in matter a magic which is non Turing emulable, nor FPI recoverable, but then I don't see how I could say yes to a doctor. The nice thing about Bruno's theory is that it provides a model which might explain the incommunicable nature of consciousness. And he even provides a critereon, Lobianity, for whether a computer is conscious. Hmm... I accumulated evidence that consciousness starts with universality. Löbianity would give self-consciousness, or reflexive consciousness. But it leaves so much of the physical aspects of consciousness and perception unexplained, This means you have
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 17 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Dec 2013, at 02:03, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 December 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical reality than the physical reality. An evil demon could be responsible for our belief in atoms, and stars, and photons, etc., but it is may be impossible for that same demon to give us the experience of factoring 7 in to two integers besides 1 and 7. But that's because we made up 1 and 7 and the defintion of factoring. They're our language and that's why we have control of them. If it's just something we made up, where does the unreasonable effectiveness come from? (Bearing in mind that most of the non- elementary maths that has been found to apply to physics was made up with no idea that it mighe turn out to have physical applications.) I'm not sure your premise is true. Calculus was certainly invented to apply to physics. Turing's machine was invented with the physical process of computation in mind. Absolutely not. The physical shape of the Turing machine was only there for pedagogical purpose. Are you denying that Turing wanted to reason about realizable computation?? Yes. When working on the foundation of math (not when working on Enigma). Of course his reasoning itself was abstract and led to a mathematical theorem. But Liz was asking about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. I don't think you can say that Turing, or Babbage or Post or Church just became interested in sequences of symbol manipulation because they dreamed about it. They were trying to find solutions to paradox arising arousing around Cantor set theory. They were concerned with real instances of inference and calculation, from which they abstracted recursive functions and Turing machines. It is the contrary. Like Gödel discovered the primituve recursive functions, and miss Church thesis, just when working on Hilbert's problem (to find an elementary consistent proof of a set theory). Same for Post, Church, Turing, and the others. In fact I got problem when saying to a mathematician that the work of Gödel, Church, and Turing was relevant to computer science. Such work were classified as pure mathematics, with no applications possible (sic). the discovery of universal machine is a purely mathematical, even arithmetical, discovery. physical implementation came later (if you except Babbage, but even Babbage will discover the mathematical machine (and be close to Church thesis), when he realized that his functional description language (intended at first as a tool for describing his machine) was a bigger discovery than his machine. The discovery of the universal machine is the bigger even discovery made by nature. It is even bigger than the big bang. And nature exploit it all the time, and with comp we understand completely why. I agree with the first sentence. I don't understand the second. Don't mind too much. We can come back to this later. I see most events in the physical universe as apparition of universal systems, including the big bang. But then that is how arithmetic has to look like from inside, when we assume comp. That discovery is a theorem of elementary arithmetic, and has nothing to do with the physical, except that with comp, we get the explanation of the physical as a consequence of that theorem in arithmetic. Non-euclidean geometry of curved spaces was invented before Einstein needed it, but it was motivated by considering coordinates on curved surfaces like the Earth. Fourier invented his transforms to solve heat transfer problems. Hilbert space was an extension of vector space in countably infinite dimensions. So the 'unreasonable effectiveness' may be an illusion based on a selection effect. This beg the question, of both the existence of math, and of a primitive physical reality (and of the link between). So what's your answer to Wigner? Math works because the fundamental reality is mathematical. The physical reality emerge as a persistent first person sharable sort of arithmetical video game. Is it just an accident that the math the universe instantiates, You assume some primitive universe. But there is no evidence at all, and on the contrary, the simplest explanation (number's dream) does not allow it to exist in any reasonable sense. out of all mathematical universes Tegmark contemplates, happens to use the same math we discovered? Tegmark forgets to sum on all first person experience/computation- viewed from inside. The physical reality is made conceptually very solid in the comp theory. It is lawful and stable. But that physical reality is only the border of a much vaster reality, that a machine cannot distinguish from arithmetic
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 18 Dec 2013, at 00:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2013 11:39 AM, LizR wrote: On 18 December 2013 07:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But I don't have to believe true=exists. It seems to me this parallels your comment that the difference between maths and matter is that we can prove that mathematical truths are true (or words to that effect - sorry posting in haste. Hope you know what I mean!) I think I do. Plus existence isn't a well defined notion, altho I did have a go earlier. I think of exists as relative to a domain. So there exists a divisor of 17 is true in arithmetic. But if exists is well defined that means your domain is not reality (or more precisely you can't assert that it's reality). Why? It depends of your starting assumptions. If you assume comp, then the fundamental reality is given by any universal system, and you can take elementary arithmetic, which prevent to treachery of using something already inspired by physics. Reality is stuff you can point to. I point to stuff in all my nocturnal dreams. I have no problem with physical reality is stuff you can point to. But that stuff is an appearance emerging from s sum of infinities of computations (by step 7 and perhaps 8). I think this is compatible with Bruno's theory. In his theory reality is not computable and therefore is never completely definite. The outer reality is well defined (arithmetical truth, in 3p). The inner (inside arithmetic, 1p views) are never *completely* definable, including plausibly physics (rather well defined but hard to circumscribe: open problem). We got three physics (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*). I rarely insist on that, but it occurs to me that this might explains some mystical reports, and some psychotropic experience reports. We get *three* multiverses, and the soul can travel in between (apparently). 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
It's not just equal rights, its the improvement in living standards that seem to do it (co-mingled with women's rights). I side with Matt Ridley completely, on this. Ridley's an author, and really accurate, I believe. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 6:40 pm Subject: Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The first step has to be to stop population growth. That's prettymuch happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it wouldbe the case there too except for immigration from the south. How tostop population growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningfullives aside from bearing children and provide readily availablebirth control; and get rid of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any otherreligion preaches against birth control. That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given equal rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to choose between children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places that get the balance right allow you to do both). -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Acording to Bruno Marchal's terminology you will see only one city and one city only; and you will see both Washington and Moscow; therefore Bruno Marchal's terminology is inconsistent in the one pee, two pee, three pee, and pee pee point of view. You are using those pronouns without taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction. You should have better written: It's Bruno Marchal not John Clark who throws around personal pronouns like confetti in philosophical discussions about personal identity. 1-you will see only one city and one city only, from his direct own 1-view; and 3-you will see both Washington and Moscow. Or even better: From the 1p point of view itself, you will see only one city and one city only; and from the 3p view you will see both Washington and Moscow. How many 1p's from the 1p point of view itself does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? John Clark would estimate about 7 billion but Bruno Marchal seems to believe there is only one and it belongs to a fellow by the name of you. But who the hell is you? I don't know what comp-indeterminacy is or understand how it is more (or is it less?) indeterminate than regular old indeterminacy. There is no regular old indeterminacy. Indeterminacy has always been a hot subject among scientists and philosophers. If it's always been a hot subject among scientists and philosophers then regular old indeterminacy must be pretty old, and I see nothing that is both new and correct about it that you have brought to the table. The comp-indeterminacy is the the easiest and less contreversial form of indeterminacy. Perhaps because you can't oppose what you can't understand; the provincial homemade terminology of comp-indeterminacy is as opaque as the idea behind it. 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/17 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote: I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are stealing our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since wealth breeds more wealth and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me. Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social system. Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and when it is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them. Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and quicker for the rich, but when people play the game honestly, everyone win, and poverty regress. In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means that there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the system and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel like not guilty. As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to the blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells feeds it. It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target. I agree, unsurprisingly. :) I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money. The rich get richer is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we remove money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to social interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely you are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks the allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency. However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies rich get richer dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful have the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things happen: It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer. Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies the effect. Ever since civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by owning stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land. If you owned land then serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land. Then merchantilism added ships to what you could own. Then industrialization added mines and oil and factories. Banking and insurance added financial instruments that you could own. But it's all of a piece. If you own stuff that you can rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer. But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have. You always refer to central banks. But all banks always did this. The bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans, depending on the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their money at any one time. So they collected interest on 10M$ while only having to pay interest on 1M$ (if at all). I agree. It is interesting to notice that it is highly illegal if a private citizen does this, but it is the business model of modern banks. An advantage of bitcoin is that it removes the need for the bank as a storage facility. Bitcoin is not a solution, Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Ask the people who had money from their bank accounts confiscated in Cyprus. the first to use the system get richer as the system is adopted in time... Yes they do. A system that enrich its creator cannot be good. Ok. I don't share this ideology. new comers don't get a share to enter, they They can work for bitcoins in a number of ways
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/18 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Acording to Bruno Marchal's terminology you will see only one city and one city only; and you will see both Washington and Moscow; therefore Bruno Marchal's terminology is inconsistent in the one pee, two pee, three pee, and pee pee point of view. You are using those pronouns without taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction. You should have better written: It's Bruno Marchal not John Clark who throws around personal pronouns like confetti in philosophical discussions about personal identity. 1-you will see only one city and one city only, from his direct own 1-view; and 3-you will see both Washington and Moscow. Or even better: From the 1p point of view itself, you will see only one city and one city only; and from the 3p view you will see both Washington and Moscow. How many 1p's from the 1p point of view itself does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? John Clark would estimate about 7 billion but Bruno Marchal seems to believe there is only one and it belongs to a fellow by the name of you. But who the hell is you? No only John Clarck believes that, and lies and lies and lies for years and is not ashamed. Quentin I don't know what comp-indeterminacy is or understand how it is more (or is it less?) indeterminate than regular old indeterminacy. There is no regular old indeterminacy. Indeterminacy has always been a hot subject among scientists and philosophers. If it's always been a hot subject among scientists and philosophers then regular old indeterminacy must be pretty old, and I see nothing that is both new and correct about it that you have brought to the table. The comp-indeterminacy is the the easiest and less contreversial form of indeterminacy. Perhaps because you can't oppose what you can't understand; the provincial homemade terminology of comp-indeterminacy is as opaque as the idea behind it. 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. -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 18 Dec 2013, at 01:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2013 4:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'll favor it as soon as it provides some surprising but empirically true predictions - the same standard as for every other theory. What if in some alternate history Bruno's UDA came before Everett's, and it provided a possible explanation of the appearance of random collapse through FPI as seen within an infinite reality? It would still be an explanation OK. - not a prediction. Why? It is hardly harder to make a more testable theory. Physics is given entirely by precise theories (the quantified _1* mathematics). It is just my incompetence which slows down the progress, I'm afraid, together with the lack of interests, nowadays, in the fundamental questions, or something ... I predicted in 1991 that such physics (comp + Theaetetus variants) would be refuted before 2000. It is not yet refuted. It would be astonishing that the first interview of the machine give the correct physics. I have always thought that the hypostases are a bit too much elegant to be entirely correct. Note that I have worked before on a different and more complex way to implement them (with conditional logic like Bp / p, or Bp / Dt, etc.) until I realized that it works (only!) with the simple conjunction (Bp p) Bp Dt, etc. To paraphrase Cantor, I see it, but don't (yet) believe in it. But it is 100% testable/refutable, and plausibly improvable. But we have to do the math to see that. Probably for the future generations. Only one thing is sure: the primary physicalness hypothesis fails in the comp frame, on the mind-body problem. Comp+theaetetus does not fail on the mind-body problem, but still fails in providing the Hamiltonian. Much works remain to be done. It is the least we can say. 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/17 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote: I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are stealing our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since wealth breeds more wealth and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me. Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social system. Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and when it is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them. Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and quicker for the rich, but when people play the game honestly, everyone win, and poverty regress. In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means that there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the system and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel like not guilty. As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to the blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells feeds it. It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target. I agree, unsurprisingly. :) I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money. The rich get richer is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we remove money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to social interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely you are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks the allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency. However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies rich get richer dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful have the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things happen: It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer. Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies the effect. Ever since civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by owning stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land. If you owned land then serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land. Then merchantilism added ships to what you could own. Then industrialization added mines and oil and factories. Banking and insurance added financial instruments that you could own. But it's all of a piece. If you own stuff that you can rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer. But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have. You always refer to central banks. But all banks always did this. The bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans, depending on the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their money at any one time. So they collected interest on 10M$ while only having to pay interest on 1M$ (if at all). I agree. It is interesting to notice that it is highly illegal if a private citizen does this, but it is the business model of modern banks. An advantage of bitcoin is that it removes the need for the bank as a storage facility. Bitcoin is not a solution, Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 December 2013 00:34, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: And the policy is generally adjusted to try produce small, but positive inflation. This is because deflation is considered unstable. Inflation is stable and encourages investment because just holding money loses value. Yup, it's the current dogma. Infinite growth. I would argue that if you want to cut CO2 emissions, this would be a good place to start. Yes, I have been saying that for a while, too. The trouble is, as people tend to point out, how do you achieve it? Americans in particular are terrified that it will lead to Socialism, whatever that would mean in practice (What they're actually sacred of of course is Totalitarianism, not realising they already have it in all but name, though controlled by corporations and suchlike rather than the government). Any ideas how to achieve a sustainable economy? I agree with the need to stop population growth. I still have some hope that the Internet will change how people think. More specifically, that it will help to dispel demons like religious fundamentalism, patriotism and other diseases of the mind. My hopes must have some merit, given the current frenzy to control it. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 18 Dec 2013, at 16:32, John Clark wrote: It's Bruno Marchal not John Clark who throws around personal pronouns like confetti in philosophical discussions about personal identity. You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction, and when you do, concludes trivial, but still refuses to handle the step 4. If it's always been a hot subject among scientists and philosophers then regular old indeterminacy must be pretty old, and I see nothing that is both new and correct about it that you have brought to the table. The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences into account, as they are related in good samples of the survivors, in simple relative duplications, or in their iteration. The first person indeterminacies are defined in term of what is written in the diaries. It contains the self-localization results, and it is a combinatorial exercise to show that the vast majority of first person experience will be highly random (random-incompressible). If this is trivial, go to step 4. If not, explain the problem, and, please, without insult, ad hominem remark, and in a way so that we understand our error. But up to now, you only seem to confuse the 1p views with some 3-view on possible 1-p views. Given comp and the definition of 1p and 3p, the FPI is very simple indeed if not trivial. Things get more interesting in step 4 and after. 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, and its future is uncertain, but its value was relying on the selling of drugs and weapons, for which the demand is high. When politcians lies, bandits does the correct things, in the incorrect ways, and bitcoins naturally made that type of merchanding more secure. Its value beginning to fall due to the hardness to keep the weapons merchandising. Banks seems to be interrelated, and the money is 60% based on lies, (I think currently), so any competing free banks can be welcome. There is no real solution of the economic problem, except to educate people in arithmetic and logic so that they stop voting for bandits and demagog. Well, that might be to late, and we can only hope the bandits will manage some amnesty and stop doing their work, but for this we must abandon the laws which create that type of banditism first. Bitcoins and much variants (like namecoin) will develop, and we might see even typed money system (money for research, monnaie for food, etc.). A system that enrich its creator cannot be good. Why? I sort of agree with you, at some level, but the creator needs to eat the braid too, at least when confined in its poor terrestrial configuration :) But the non-creator, or during his lack of inspiration, needs the braid too, and we should not forget that. 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction, For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person. It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences into account, The not a ?? For the third time please say how many first person experiences exist on planet Earth right now and if there are more than one which one is Bruno Marchal referring to? The first person indeterminacies are defined in term of what is written in the diaries. How do they do that? All the diaries are full of the same personal pronouns and they all say the same thing, I don't know what I will see next. you only seem to confuse the 1p views with some 3-view on possible 1-p views. For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person. Things get more interesting in step 4 and after. If step 4 is built on a foundation of gibberish then it can't be very interesting. 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 18 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 December 2013 00:34, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: And the policy is generally adjusted to try produce small, but positive inflation. This is because deflation is considered unstable. Inflation is stable and encourages investment because just holding money loses value. Yup, it's the current dogma. Infinite growth. I would argue that if you want to cut CO2 emissions, this would be a good place to start. Yes, I have been saying that for a while, too. The trouble is, as people tend to point out, how do you achieve it? Americans in particular are terrified that it will lead to Socialism, whatever that would mean in practice (What they're actually sacred of of course is Totalitarianism, not realising they already have it in all but name, though controlled by corporations and suchlike rather than the government). Any ideas how to achieve a sustainable economy? I agree with the need to stop population growth. I still have some hope that the Internet will change how people think. More specifically, that it will help to dispel demons like religious fundamentalism, patriotism and other diseases of the mind. My hopes must have some merit, given the current frenzy to control it. It is exactly like with the drugs. The more your will control the sites, the more sites will move in the underground-nets. System like THOR and descendants. We (the Löbian beings) have partial control. The wanting of total control is catastrophe promise. More generally, hell is paved with good intentions. The long run value of the bitcoin or of any coin is really in the quality of his investments and the trust it get from the people for a long time. Bitcoin can be the embryo of future virtual states, even private states and even secret states, for first or second or third life/lives. Whatever. Reality is beyond lies and fiction. Bruno Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... Quentin and its future is uncertain, but its value was relying on the selling of drugs and weapons, for which the demand is high. When politcians lies, bandits does the correct things, in the incorrect ways, and bitcoins naturally made that type of merchanding more secure. Its value beginning to fall due to the hardness to keep the weapons merchandising. Banks seems to be interrelated, and the money is 60% based on lies, (I think currently), so any competing free banks can be welcome. There is no real solution of the economic problem, except to educate people in arithmetic and logic so that they stop voting for bandits and demagog. Well, that might be to late, and we can only hope the bandits will manage some amnesty and stop doing their work, but for this we must abandon the laws which create that type of banditism first. Bitcoins and much variants (like namecoin) will develop, and we might see even typed money system (money for research, monnaie for food, etc.). A system that enrich its creator cannot be good. Why? I sort of agree with you, at some level, but the creator needs to eat the braid too, at least when confined in its poor terrestrial configuration :) But the non-creator, or during his lack of inspiration, needs the braid too, and we should not forget that. 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. -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked pieces from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you erased the following questions: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) Bruno: If this is trivial, go to step 4. If not, explain the problem, and, please, without insult, ad hominem remark, and in a way so that we understand our error. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) This will go on forever without resolution if you refuse to answer these questions, but maybe going on forever without resolution is your goal. Jason On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You are the one not taking into account the 1p and 3p distinction, For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person. It is clear that you don't take the first person experiences into account, The not a ?? For the third time please say how many first person experiences exist on planet Earth right now and if there are more than one which one is Bruno Marchal referring to? The first person indeterminacies are defined in term of what is written in the diaries. How do they do that? All the diaries are full of the same personal pronouns and they all say the same thing, I don't know what I will see next. you only seem to confuse the 1p views with some 3-view on possible 1-p views. For several years now Bruno Marchal has accused John Clark of that, but John Clark would maintain that there is not a single person on the face of the earth who is confused by the difference between the first person and the third person. Things get more interesting in step 4 and after. If step 4 is built on a foundation of gibberish then it can't be very interesting. 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. -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? -- 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 19 December 2013 08:05, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked pieces from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you erased the following questions: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) Bruno: If this is trivial, go to step 4. If not, explain the problem, and, please, without insult, ad hominem remark, and in a way so that we understand our error. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) This will go on forever without resolution if you refuse to answer these questions, but maybe going on forever without resolution is your goal. Quite. This is almost as empty headed as just dismissing the idea as crackpot without any explanation or refuattion. Bruno's laid out his assumptions and arguments, if you can refute them please do so. -- 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: It's really all math
That looks familiar. Have you posted it before? (Or maybe I just saw a cartoon like it once...) Because when you consider it, there are really only a few jokes, and some can be considered as basically just elaborations of simpler ones. ...skipping to the end, Jerry whacks Tom with a frying pan and his head ends up pan-shaped. -- 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 LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. The open problem of bodies that Bruno admits only exists because of the neglect of the problem of Becoming that any ontology that assumes that Being is fundamental will have. Even if we make arguments, ala Parmenideshttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/, etc. that becoming is an illusionhttp://skepticalphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/08/parmenides-refutation-of-change.html, the illusion itself must be explained or else one is left with an explanatory infinite regress. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 08:05, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: For someone who demands to be quoted in full, you sure cherry-picked pieces from Bruno's e-mail. How telling it is that you erased the following questions: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) Bruno: If this is trivial, go to step 4. If not, explain the problem, and, please, without insult, ad hominem remark, and in a way so that we understand our error. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) This will go on forever without resolution if you refuse to answer these questions, but maybe going on forever without resolution is your goal. Quite. This is almost as empty headed as just dismissing the idea as crackpot without any explanation or refuattion. Bruno's laid out his assumptions and arguments, if you can refute them please do so. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
2013/12/18 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, By design. and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever... Also as the bitcoins are limited (and over time some are and will be lost), they can only deflate, and as the goods and services are not limited the same way, this encourage hoarding. I can't see a benefit in that... but the most unfair thing is that the first 5 millions bitcoins were easy and cheap to mine... rendering the first in the system potentially billionaires without having created *any* wealth... it's a con currency, not a currency. The only people who will benefit from it (if some crazy thing happen in the world and the thing is adopted) are the early adopters. Plus the way the blockchain work, it cannot scale well and just for that it is doubtful bitcoin could see a large adoption. Quentin -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble. That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
On 19 December 2013 10:09, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, By design. and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever... Sorry, but that doesn't tell me why the number is fixed, and why one can't be recreated. Preferably explain in simple terms, so an idiot like me can grasp it. -- 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: Minds, Machines and Gödel
If this is a proof of the falsity of mechanism, is there any chance of a precis? :-) -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, By design. and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever... Also as the bitcoins are limited (and over time some are and will be lost), they can only deflate, and as the goods and services are not limited the same way, this encourage hoarding. I can't see a benefit in that... but the most unfair thing is that the first 5 millions bitcoins were easy and cheap to mine... rendering the first in the system potentially billionaires without having created *any* wealth... it's a con currency, not a currency. The only people who will benefit from it (if some crazy thing happen in the world and the thing is adopted) are the early adopters. Plus the way the blockchain work, it cannot scale well and just for that it is doubtful bitcoin could see a large adoption. This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated and old transaction discarded. The solution is described in the original paper, section 7: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Telmo. Quentin -- 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. -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
Le 18 déc. 2013 22:31, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 19 December 2013 10:09, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, By design. and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever... Sorry, but that doesn't tell me why the number is fixed, and why one can't be recreated. Preferably explain in simple terms, so an idiot like me can grasp it. It is by design. You can't cteate more than 21 millions and you can't recreate a lost bitcoin. -- 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
Le 18 déc. 2013 22:37, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com a écrit : On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, By design. and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever... Also as the bitcoins are limited (and over time some are and will be lost), they can only deflate, and as the goods and services are not limited the same way, this encourage hoarding. I can't see a benefit in that... but the most unfair thing is that the first 5 millions bitcoins were easy and cheap to mine... rendering the first in the system potentially billionaires without having created *any* wealth... it's a con currency, not a currency. The only people who will benefit from it (if some crazy thing happen in the world and the thing is adopted) are the early adopters. Plus the way the blockchain work, it cannot scale well and just for that it is doubtful bitcoin could see a large adoption. This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated and old transaction discarded. What about the remaining of what I said? The solution is described in the original paper, section 7: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Telmo. Quentin -- 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. -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi LizR, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble. SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a view from nowhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere. Thus my claim follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr point of view that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR. That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of events. People like Renata Lollhttp://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.htmland Kevin Knuth http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881 have some pretty good arguments against the idea that space-time is something that we are embedded in. This fishbowl or container conceptualization of space-time is just another version of the Laplacean vision... My wording involving sapience was bad/unhelpful -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
On 19 December 2013 10:44, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Le 18 déc. 2013 22:37, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com a écrit : This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated and old transaction discarded. What about the remaining of what I said? In that case, too, the blockchain was truncated and the old transaction discarded! ...Sorry, I'll get my digital coat. -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
Le 18 déc. 2013 23:21, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit : On 19 December 2013 10:44, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Le 18 déc. 2013 22:37, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com a écrit : This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated and old transaction discarded. What about the remaining of what I said? In that case, too, the blockchain was truncated and the old transaction discarded! ? ...Sorry, I'll get my digital coat. -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble. SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a view from nowhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere. Thus my claim follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr point of view that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR. I'm not sure that SR, GR and QM require selection of a frame except insofar as one wishes to perform a particular calculation. SR for example describes what particular observers will measure, but doesn't require that their frame of reference is in any way special. Similarly, QM (with Everett) doesn't require that any basis is special, as far as I know, just that certain observers will select one by making a particular measurement. I think the use of the word bias in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of events. People like Renata Lollhttp://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.htmland Kevin Knuth http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881 have some pretty good arguments against the idea that space-time is something that we are embedded in. This fishbowl or container conceptualization of space-time is just another version of the Laplacean vision... I don't know about Kevin Knuth, what is he suggesting? Renate Loll is I believe an exponent of CDT, which as far as I know doesn't make any changes to the notion that events and so on are embedded in space time. My wording involving sapience was bad/unhelpful I know I have oversimplified and even misused words on occasion, but I'm merely a humble housewife / editrix. I'd hope a philosopher would be extra careful about word choice! -- 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 the banks are stealing our wealth
On 19 December 2013 11:24, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated and old transaction discarded. What about the remaining of what I said? In that case, too, the blockchain was truncated and the old transaction discarded! ? Sorry, I attemped a joke. -- 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 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. If one of the dimensions is called time I think that means there is change. :-) 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: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:09, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a society with more individual freedoms, for example. I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve that ? Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*... I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, By design. and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated? Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever... Sorry, but that doesn't tell me why the number is fixed, and why one can't be recreated. Preferably explain in simple terms, so an idiot like me can grasp it. All the transactions that occurred so far are registered in a file that is shared between the nodes in the network. New transactions are broadcast to many nodes. One of these nodes is going to be lucky enough to find a way to incorporate the outstanding transactions into the file according to very strict requirements. These outstanding set of transactions will form a block. A block contains the following things: - the hash of the previous block - the set of transactions - an arbitrary number (nounce) An hash is the output of a one-way functions. One-way functions are hard to invert, so getting the original block from the hash is computationally hard. The bitcoin protocol wants to make the hash hard to create, in part because every time a hash is discovered, the discoverer is rewarded with a predetermined number of bitcoins. The way to make the hash hard to create is that the network agrees that it must start with a certain number of zeros. The only way to meet this requirement is through brute force, by trying random values for the nounce until one works. Once the hash is found, a new block is created and work will begin on finding the nest one, ad infinitum. This is why the ledger file is called a blockchain. Each block hashes the hash of the previous block. This difficulty also serves as a proof-of-work (a receipt that shows that a certain amount of computational effort was spent, on average). This protects the network against attacks. If a node received two conflicting blockchains, it will chose the longest one. This way, unless the attacker controls the majority of the computing power of the network, it cannot create a fake blockchain longer than the rest of the network. So mining for bitcoins is the same process that allows for transactions. There is also the possibility of transaction fees. When you make a transaction, you can volunteer to pay a fee to the miners. The discoverer of the next block will receive this fee. Nodes that receive your transactions are not forced to accept them, so the fee is an incentive for them to accept it. As mining becomes less profitable, it becomes more likely that miners will expect fees. Once all coins are discovered, the network will work solely on fees, and I imagine fee prices will emerge naturally (miners will compete on price, users will pay more according to urgency). In a market with many transactions, mining can become profitable even with no new coins to discover and low fees. What contains your coins are wallets. Wallets are two random numbers. One is public, for incoming transactions and one private, for outgoing transactions. Only you know your private address but if you sign a transaction with it, the validity if the transaction can be confirmed through a one-way function against the blockchain. So ultimately, you keep possession of your coins by knowing the private address. So the blockchain is a gigantic number and the wallets are numbers. The actual coins are not numbers, they are a complete abstraction. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi LizR, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble. SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a view from nowhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere. Thus my claim follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr point of view that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR. I'm not sure that SR, GR and QM require selection of a frame except insofar as one wishes to perform a particular calculation. SR for example describes what particular observers will measure, but doesn't require that their frame of reference is in any way special. Similarly, QM (with Everett) doesn't require that any basis is special, as far as I know, just that certain observers will select one by making a particular measurement. What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to ...perform a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make ourselves believe that we can know all that there is to know about the world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we gaze upon the space of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty good ideas exploring exactly how the particular calculations work. One has to plug in a set of numbers that include the specification of the inertial frame of reference (which involves the masses and velocities of the objects that are considered in the calculation). One then turns the crank and out pops a solution that is true* for that particular inertial frame*. My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra) must be done. That's the math... I think the use of the word bias in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection. If no member is left out then we could say that the choice is unbiased, but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a I'lll take them all! when all of them can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way, there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore... That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from? We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of events. People like Renata Lollhttp://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.htmland Kevin Knuth
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Kevin Knuth's talk: http://pirsa.org/10050054/ On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. I'm not sure what you are saying - if they are immune from your critique, then I assume your critique is in trouble. SR, GR and QM do not require, and some say even prohibit, a view from nowhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_nowhere. Thus my claim follows. SR, GR and QM all require some selection of a frame or basis pr point of view that induces a bias. Laplace and the Newtonians and, I argue, the Platonist assume that the ontological ground can be defined to have some particular set of properties (and not any other) without any explanation of how it is necessarily so; like Bruno with his AR. I'm not sure that SR, GR and QM require selection of a frame except insofar as one wishes to perform a particular calculation. SR for example describes what particular observers will measure, but doesn't require that their frame of reference is in any way special. Similarly, QM (with Everett) doesn't require that any basis is special, as far as I know, just that certain observers will select one by making a particular measurement. What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to ...perform a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make ourselves believe that we can know all that there is to know about the world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we gaze upon the space of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty good ideas exploring exactly how the particular calculations work. One has to plug in a set of numbers that include the specification of the inertial frame of reference (which involves the masses and velocities of the objects that are considered in the calculation). One then turns the crank and out pops a solution that is true* for that particular inertial frame*. My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra) must be done. That's the math... I think the use of the word bias in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection. If no member is left out then we could say that the choice is unbiased, but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a I'lll take them all! when all of them can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way, there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore... That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from? We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. Part of
Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel
On 19 December 2013 08:32, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If this is a proof of the falsity of mechanism, is there any chance of a precis? :-) The argument has been restated with elaboration by Penrose, and has been extensively criticised. http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
On 19 December 2013 12:13, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: All the transactions that occurred so far are registered in a file that is shared between the nodes in the network. New transactions are broadcast to many nodes. One of these nodes is going to be lucky enough to find a way to incorporate the outstanding transactions into the file according to very strict requirements. These outstanding set of transactions will form a block. A block contains the following things: - the hash of the previous block - the set of transactions - an arbitrary number (nounce) An hash is the output of a one-way functions. One-way functions are hard to invert, so getting the original block from the hash is computationally hard. The bitcoin protocol wants to make the hash hard to create, in part because every time a hash is discovered, the discoverer is rewarded with a predetermined number of bitcoins. The way to make the hash hard to create is that the network agrees that it must start with a certain number of zeros. The only way to meet this requirement is through brute force, by trying random values for the nounce until one works. Once the hash is found, a new block is created and work will begin on finding the nest one, ad infinitum. This is why the ledger file is called a blockchain. Each block hashes the hash of the previous block. This difficulty also serves as a proof-of-work (a receipt that shows that a certain amount of computational effort was spent, on average). This protects the network against attacks. If a node received two conflicting blockchains, it will chose the longest one. This way, unless the attacker controls the majority of the computing power of the network, it cannot create a fake blockchain longer than the rest of the network. So mining for bitcoins is the same process that allows for transactions. There is also the possibility of transaction fees. When you make a transaction, you can volunteer to pay a fee to the miners. The discoverer of the next block will receive this fee. Nodes that receive your transactions are not forced to accept them, so the fee is an incentive for them to accept it. As mining becomes less profitable, it becomes more likely that miners will expect fees. Once all coins are discovered, the network will work solely on fees, and I imagine fee prices will emerge naturally (miners will compete on price, users will pay more according to urgency). In a market with many transactions, mining can become profitable even with no new coins to discover and low fees. What contains your coins are wallets. Wallets are two random numbers. One is public, for incoming transactions and one private, for outgoing transactions. Only you know your private address but if you sign a transaction with it, the validity if the transaction can be confirmed through a one-way function against the blockchain. So ultimately, you keep possession of your coins by knowing the private address. So the blockchain is a gigantic number and the wallets are numbers. The actual coins are not numbers, they are a complete abstraction. Thank you very much for that description, which I think I have more or less managed to understand. (I assume the 21 million limit is an outcome of this system demanding that the hast start with a specified number of zeroes?) It sounds as though these things will eventually mimic house prices, which decouple from the cost of building after a while and go into a market-driven upwards spiral. (Well, except that people actually *need * houses...) -- 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 19 December 2013 12:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. If one of the dimensions is called time I think that means there is change. :-) Yes, that's what I just said. -- 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 12/18/2013 3:16 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_%28linear_algebra%29 must be done. That's the math... ?? A Hilbert space is an infinite dimensional vector space. Choosing a basis in only a calculational convenience, like choosing a coordinate system. The choice has no effect on any physics, just on how hard or easy some calculation is. 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Calling a sequential ordering of events time does not make a sequence of events spring into being. It may in our heads but the physical world doesn't work that way... Time would emerge right along with space from interactions between events. We do not need to specify the space and time before hand; all that is necessary is a huge number of events and interactions among them. QM systems come with Hamiltonianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)and so have everything they need to build space-time out of their interactions. The Fishbowl fears Occam's razor's strike! On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 12:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. If one of the dimensions is called time I think that means there is change. :-) Yes, that's what I just said. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to ...perform a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make ourselves believe that we can know all that there is to know about the world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we gaze upon the space of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty good ideas exploring exactly how the particular calculations work. One has to plug in a set of numbers that include the specification of the inertial frame of reference (which involves the masses and velocities of the objects that are considered in the calculation). One then turns the crank and out pops a solution that is true* for that particular inertial frame*. My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra) must be done. That's the math... That isn't quite correct. The view from nowhere *is *the equations. I think the use of the word bias in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection. If no member is left out then we could say that the choice is unbiased, but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a I'lll take them all! when all of them can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way, there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore... Bias as normally used has various psychological implications that don't apply to calculations in physics. It might be better to use a word without such connotations (frame of reference or basis, for example). That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from? From when a specific observer makes a specific measurement. The theory covers all possible selection biases. Theories try very hard to be general in that sense. We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. Part of my research is looking at space-time as an emergent ordering of events. People like Renata Lollhttp://www.hef.ru.nl/~rloll/Web/research/research.htmland Kevin Knuth http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0881 have some pretty good arguments against the idea that space-time is something that we are embedded in. This fishbowl or container conceptualization of space-time is just another version of the Laplacean vision... I don't know about Kevin Knuth, what is he suggesting? Renate Loll is I believe an exponent of CDT, which as far as I know doesn't make any changes to the notion that events and so on are embedded in space time. Read Kevin's paper that I linked to his name. Its neat! There is a video of a talk that he gave on the subject. The QA session at the end is very interesting. The abstract is enough to tell me that it doesn't make any changes to the idea of events being embedded in space time. Indeed he's trying to recover that concept from his chains of events. It sounds similar to CDT in that way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/18/2013 3:51 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Calling a sequential ordering of events time does not make a sequence of events spring into being. ?? Calling a large grey pachyderm an elephant does not make a large grey pachyderm spring into being either - but on the other hand it was already there in order that it might be called anything at all. It may in our heads but the physical world doesn't work that way... Time would emerge right along with space from interactions between events. We do not need to specify the space and time before hand; all that is necessary is a huge number of events and interactions among them. Sure, space and time are ways of ordering and classifying events that makes it possible describe their dynamics as simply as possible. Brent QM systems come with Hamiltonians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29 and so have everything they need to build space-time out of their interactions. The Fishbowl fears Occam's razor's strike! On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 12:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. If one of the dimensions is called time I think that means there is change. :-) Yes, that's what I just said. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 19 December 2013 12:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Calling a sequential ordering of events time does not make a sequence of events spring into being. It may in our heads but the physical world doesn't work that way... Time would emerge right along with space from interactions between events. We do not need to specify the space and time before hand; all that is necessary is a huge number of events and interactions among them. Like a Feynman diagram, perhaps? Space and time can emerge from a network of events, of course - in for example the delightfully named spin foam (physics can be so poetic sometimes). However the chains of events are themselves unchanging, and hence effectively embedded in something, even if only an abstract topological space. One doesn't need a higher-order time in which these events interact in some sense, one only needs them plus the links between them. So this is just another way of getting space-time from an underlying block universe. QM systems come with Hamiltonianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)and so have everything they need to build space-time out of their interactions. That would be the snapshot approach to space-time espoused by David Deutsch in FoR, I assume. It allows the appearance of space, time and change to emerge from something that has no intrinsic time built in. (Hence it shows how we could recover space and time from something like the Wheeler-deWitt equation, I guess.) The Fishbowl fears Occam's razor's strike! The enfant terrible of the bad analogy fears the wilted celery of the inappropriate metaphor! -- 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 Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune from my critique. Special Relativity leaves no room for this, you need to accept the reality of all points in time as equally real. See: http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS04/PutnamJPhil.pdf and http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/ The relativity of simultaneity makes the idea of a single existing present inconsistent. If you want an explanation for the illusion of time, you will need to examine the brain that creates (not the ontologies of physical theories) Consider this: If there were two present moments one day apart, that moved along in parallel, would you have any way of knowing? Then what if there were a million co-moving presents? Then what if all present moment's existed at once? How would you refute it? If you can't tell if there are two presents (and not one), I see no way you could rule out the existence of all presents. Jason Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe. That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming. It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms and use a variation of Process Philosophy instead. Becoming is ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class: Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being supervenes on Becoming. OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite dimensional Hilbert space? Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries and other tricks) all of the infinite dimensions except some finite subset, but that is the act that introduces the bias that I am pointing at! The actual Hilbert spaces used to do calculi are finite dimensional. No, Choosing a basis and choosing a coordinate system is NOT a convenience. You must do it. Especially in GR, where one cannot define the manifold unless there is a choice of coordinate system on the patches of local space-time used to define the manifold - which is then run through the diffeomorphism mill... AFAIK, there is no global manifold that can be defined that does not involve the requirement of stitching together of local patches of space-time (defined per individual events) into manifolds of arbitrary size. What must be remembered is that the stitching operation is very restrictive, one cannot connect patches that have events with different (other than an infinitesimal) values of momenta and position associated with each. The math of GR is amazing once one is familiar with it... On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/18/2013 3:16 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_%28linear_algebra%29must be done. That's the math... ?? A Hilbert space is an infinite dimensional vector space. Choosing a basis in only a calculational convenience, like choosing a coordinate system. The choice has no effect on any physics, just on how hard or easy some calculation is. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 19 December 2013 13:24, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Consider this: If there were two present moments one day apart, that moved along in parallel, would you have any way of knowing? Then what if there were a million co-moving presents? Then what if all present moment's existed at once? How would you refute it? If you can't tell if there are two presents (and not one), I see no way you could rule out the existence of all presents. This and similar ideas are explored (fictionally!) in Barrington Bayley's novel Collision with Chronos. -- 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 Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to ...perform a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make ourselves believe that we can know all that there is to know about the world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we gaze upon the space of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty good ideas exploring exactly how the particular calculations work. One has to plug in a set of numbers that include the specification of the inertial frame of reference (which involves the masses and velocities of the objects that are considered in the calculation). One then turns the crank and out pops a solution that is true* for that particular inertial frame*. My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra) must be done. That's the math... That isn't quite correct. The view from nowhere *is *the equations. LOL, nice semantic trick. A mathematical system is a view. Seriously! That argument is rubbish. Nagel was great on some of his stuff, but that argument have serious problems. For example, we find here http://www.amazon.com/View-Nowhere-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195056442 Human beings have the unique ability to view the world in a detached way: We can think about the world in terms that transcend our own experience or interest, and consider the world from a vantage point that is, in Nagel's words, nowhere in particular. At the same time, each of us is a particular person in a particular place, each with his own personal view of the world, a view that we can recognize as just one aspect of the whole. How do we reconcile these two standpoints--intellectually, morally, and practically? To what extent are they irreconcilable and to what extent can they be integrated? Thomas Nagel's ambitious and lively book tackles this fundamental issue, arguing that our divided nature is the root of a whole range of philosophical problems, touching, as it does, every aspect of human life. He deals with its manifestations in such fields of philosophy as: the mind-body problem, personal identity, knowledge and skepticism, thought and reality, free will, ethics, the relation between moral and other values, the meaning of life, and death. *Excessive objectification has been a malady of recent analytic philosophy, claims Nagel, it has led to implausible forms of reductionism in the philosophy of mind and elsewhere. The solution is not to inhibit the objectifying impulse, but to insist that it learn to live alongside the internal perspectives that cannot be either discarded or objectified. Reconciliation between the two standpoints, in the end, is not always possible.* (with my added italics) I think the use of the word bias in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection. If no member is left out then we could say that the choice is unbiased, but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a I'lll take them all! when all of them can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way, there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore... Bias as normally used has various psychological implications that don't apply to calculations in physics. It might be better to use a word without such connotations (frame of reference or basis, for example). Semantics... Could you offer a better word? That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from? From when a specific observer makes a
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/18/2013 4:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite dimensional Hilbert space? Sure. Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries and other tricks) all of the infinite dimensions except some finite subset, You can calculate all the eigenfunctions of a finite square well. but that is the act that introduces the bias that I am pointing at! The actual Hilbert spaces used to do calculi are finite dimensional. Even if you only find a finite subset of eigenfunctions, the calculation is still done in an infinite dimensional space. If you create a wave packet it consists of infinitely many momentum eigenfunctions. I don't see that cutting the No, Choosing a basis and choosing a coordinate system is NOT a convenience. You must do it. Try reading Robert Wald's Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime. He seldom chooses a coordinate system. Especially in GR, where one cannot define the manifold unless there is a choice of coordinate system on the patches of local space-time used to define the manifold - which is then run through the diffeomorphism mill... AFAIK, there is no global manifold that can be defined that does not involve the requirement of stitching together of local patches of space-time (defined per individual events) into manifolds of arbitrary size. But that doesn't require choosing a specific coordinate system, and in fact for most manifolds it is impossible to choose a single coordinate system. What must be remembered is that the stitching operation is very restrictive, one cannot connect patches that have events with different (other than an infinitesimal) values of momenta and position associated with each. The math of GR is amazing once one is familiar with it... ?? Coordinate patches have momenta?? That's amazing all right. 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 19 December 2013 13:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to ...perform a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways to make ourselves believe that we can know all that there is to know about the world given some theory (mathematical or other). Can we gaze upon the space of solutions of SR, etc? No! But we can get some pretty good ideas exploring exactly how the particular calculations work. One has to plug in a set of numbers that include the specification of the inertial frame of reference (which involves the masses and velocities of the objects that are considered in the calculation). One then turns the crank and out pops a solution that is true* for that particular inertial frame*. My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere or, equivalently, for a god's eye point of view. God is dead and so is his view. For QM, things are even more restrictive: one has to assume that the Hilbert space of the wave function is *finite* and a choice of the basis of that space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra)must be done. That's the math... That isn't quite correct. The view from nowhere *is *the equations. LOL, nice semantic trick. A mathematical system is a view. Seriously! That argument is rubbish. Nagel was great on some of his stuff, but that argument have serious problems. It isn't a semantic trick. That's what a scientific theory is - a general description of the system in question (e.g. the universe or a hydrogen atom). If you expect more than that you are deluding yourself, because that's exactly what you get. The equations are general, hence they aren't taking any specific view / frame of reference / basis. I think the use of the word bias in the context of reference frames and suchlike is misleading. Not at all. It is a bias. Anything a choice is made from a non-singular collection of possibilities, the result is some subset of that collection. If no member is left out then we could say that the choice is unbiased, but what kind of choice is the one that pulls a I'lll take them all! when all of them can not be simultaneously chosen? Nature works that way, there is no such thing as an unbiased choice, therefore... Bias as normally used has various psychological implications that don't apply to calculations in physics. It might be better to use a word without such connotations (frame of reference or basis, for example). Semantics... Could you offer a better word? Frame of reference or basis. That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we, as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the universe: this is cheating don't you think? No I don't see any cheating. Everything we can say about the universe is our interpretation, so bringing that up seems at best tangential and at worst a non sequitur. Ah, but neglecting the interpretation and its selection bias - as if it did not exist!- is the problem I am pointing out. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist in the theory, only when a specific observer is making a specific measurement. OK, it doesn't exist in the theory, so where is it coming from? From when a specific observer makes a specific measurement. The theory covers all possible selection biases. Theories try very hard to be general in that sense. OK, so there it is: ...when a specific observer makes a specific measurement. There does not exist an entity that can have states of knowledge of something that cannot exist. There is no god and no view that it, if it could exist, could have. Any reasoning that assumes otherwise is wrong from the bang. I can't parse the above. But to reiterate, a theory is a set of equations which tries to apply to the general case. When someone uses it in a specific situation, then they select a frame of reference. We don't extract sapience (whatever that means) by inventing mathematical explanations - I would say we apply sapience. Adding verbiage about change and interaction adds exactly nothing to the description of the world we obtain from SR, GR and QM. Nothing else is required to account for our experience of change beyond an embedded pattern in space-time, and if anyone is going to claim that something else is required, it's up to them to explain why. Part of my research is looking at
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Brent, On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/18/2013 4:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite dimensional Hilbert space? Sure. Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries and other tricks) all of the infinite dimensions except some finite subset, You can calculate all the eigenfunctions of a finite square well. but that is the act that introduces the bias that I am pointing at! The actual Hilbert spaces used to do calculi are finite dimensional. Even if you only find a finite subset of eigenfunctions, the calculation is still done in an infinite dimensional space. If you create a wave packet it consists of infinitely many momentum eigenfunctions. I don't see that cutting the What else did you meant to write? No, Choosing a basis and choosing a coordinate system is NOT a convenience. You must do it. Try reading Robert Wald's Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime. He seldom chooses a coordinate system. I have. Especially in GR, where one cannot define the manifold unless there is a choice of coordinate system on the patches of local space-time used to define the manifold - which is then run through the diffeomorphism mill... AFAIK, there is no global manifold that can be defined that does not involve the requirement of stitching together of local patches of space-time (defined per individual events) into manifolds of arbitrary size. But that doesn't require choosing a specific coordinate system, and in fact for most manifolds it is impossible to choose a single coordinate system. Non sequitur What must be remembered is that the stitching operation is very restrictive, one cannot connect patches that have events with different (other than an infinitesimal) values of momenta and position associated with each. The math of GR is amazing once one is familiar with it... ?? Coordinate patches have momenta?? That's amazing all right. that is not what I wrote. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
