Re: It's about time!
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-) Alan Turing gets a royal pardon And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war and (virtually) invent computers, be driven to suicide by the police and they've kept his pardon back all this time. FFS, you dare to wait this long to pardon him for something that hasn't been a crime for god knows how long - the man who rewrite the history of the 20th century for the better - you aren't worthy to kiss his boots, you bunch of I find the pardon thing offensive. There's nothing to pardon. What they should do is apologise. Turing is the one who would have something to pardon. Excuse me. [image: :oops:] (As you can see I even got ungrammatical, which in my case indicates strong passions...) On 25 December 2013 10:29, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Without checking your link, I hope that's Alan Turing being forgiven. (I've been ranting about this on various forums. I guess I overlooked this one...) On 25 December 2013 10:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This comes over 60 years too latehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/alan-turing-enigma-code-breaker-and-computer-pioneer-wins-royal-pardon.html?hp. But at least it came. -- 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 ?
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1- view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time). You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6. So what about step 7? How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer? 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 ?
Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time). You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6. So what about step 7? How do you predict conceptually the result of any physical experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this work? In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or sigma_1-complete physical reality, in some local sense. We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical reality). Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp, we are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that such primitiveness cannot solve the mind-body problem when made into a dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness. Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all assumptions above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic). The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is derived from basically just Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) or just x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x Idea-wise, Wolfram and Von Neumann's cellular automata, also known as programs. I cannot parse this sentence. I am not saying there is a programmer (like Herr Doctor Scmidhuber has pondered) but there seems to be a pre-existing program, producing your Arithmetic. ? I assume arithmetic. No more than any scientists. I define programs in arithmetic. I don't define arithmetic in programs. We need to assume a sigma_1 complete reality, as we cannot get them from less. But to reason further, and extracts the big bangs from arithmetic, we need to define in RA, the notion of observers, reason, and this is done in the usual mathematical manner, which happens, for computer science, to be entirely build in term of numbers relations and functions, some describable, some not, in arithmetical sentences. Platonism is great, Platonism is a theorem in arithmetic, once you bet that it exists a level of description of yourself where you are Turing emulable. But the arithmetical realism used by comp is a far weaker hypothesis: it is just the hypothesis that the elementary closed arithmetical sentences, like Ex(x+1=2), are true, or false. It is assumed by 99,% of scientists. This is very important spudboy, I am just a humble logician which says that if you believe that you can survive with a digital brains (physical, if you want), then physics becomes a sub-branch of computer science, which is already (although not so well known) a branch of number theory. Mechanism has been a long time ally to materialism, but the discovery of the universal machine illustrates that mechanism is more an ally of the question to king Milinda or to Neoplatonism. but I am doubtful that the magic of self organization can come up with forms all on its own. It cannot happen from just logic and addition. It cannot happen from just logic and multiplication. It happens from the conjunction of logic, addition and multiplication. Before the chicken came the animal that preceded the chicken-maybe a raptor, forget the egg. The comp TOE, isolated through UDA and the AUDA, assumes the less. The TOE is already taught in elementary school. I have never heard one parent complaining of any form of brainwashing, or propaganda when taught in elementary mathematical propositions, so I think that doubting arithmetical realism is just obscurantist obstructive type of bad faith, and it hides the fact that comp leads to Platonism, in the philosophical or metaphysical, or theological, sense. I am a scientist. I put the assumption on the table. They are quite weak, and I reason from there. You seem to ignore the relations between computer science and arithmetic, but this is standard in theoretical computer science. You seem to assume a primitive physical universe, but the UDA shows that this does not even make sense, in case the comp substitution level exist. You need to convince yourself by following the reasoning, and study a bit of computer science. A tiny part of the arithmetical reality contains the whole of the computable, and the arithmetical reality is vaster as it knows about the termination or non termination of algorithm or class of algorithms, etc. The observers are emulated in that tiny parts of arithmetic, but what is true about them and about their experiences extends the whole arithmetical, the whole analytical, and even quite plausibly/arguably the whole mathematical (in the current sense of mathematical). I am not proposing anything new, just pointing on the incompatibility between mechanist and materialist cognitive sciences, and showing how computer science translates the mind-body problem into a body belief problem in arithmetic. The conversation with the Lôbian machine is just the beginning of the solution, in the most ideal case. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, and many worlds nonsense. Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bi ... -- 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: God or not?
On 25 Dec 2013, at 19:26, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined. God noun A noise many members of the Everything list still insist on making with their mouth even though they've long ago abandoned the idea behind it. The problem, you see, is that if we decide to give It another Name, some people could take that name seriously, which is missing the point, following the point of many religion or spirituality. God is not that much a bad name. It is both a name and a susbtantive, as we can talk about the pagan gods. Gods are name for ignorances, but ignorances are real and with comp, even more alive by its own, somehow. To invoke a god in an explanation (like what comp shows that the materialist do with matter, actually) is an error in science. To invoke science to says there is no god, is also an error in science. What we can say is that we don't have evidences for this or that form of God(s) or Goddess(es). I use Platonism, where God == Truth. Not necessarily the one we know (but can't communicate rationally, or justify), but also the one we question and search. Bruno John K Clark Otherwise everyone is talking about different things and nothing will go anywhere. If you need a God there is only one possible rational definition and that is to just define God as the universe itself. First there is now absolute certainty that God does exist (all the interminable meaningless arguments vanish), and second his attributes now become the proper subject matter of science and reason rather than ideology, faith or myth. But most certainly the dogmas of all the organized religions are all atavistic myths in the same category as Zeus and Odin which, like them, should have been discarded millennia ago Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, That's funny, I've always lumped together presentist theories of time with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other times and other branches of the wave function. Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers. They have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience plainly showed them. -- Galileo and many worlds nonsense. Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light influences? Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious experience and appearances of physical realities. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He did answer and did it correctly, I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give? I quote myself: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note) No you did not. from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. That's real nice, but it wasn't the question. How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? John Clark's answer: 7 billion. How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view. Can you explain why you ask? Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view and it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person experiences views from their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now. It is a simple question, what is the number? In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 1-view. In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view. OK? This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10 1-views. But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the copies get one bi ... -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear Bruno, On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this work? In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or sigma_1-complete physical reality, in some local sense. Could this Turing universal/sigma_1-complete in a local sense be the exact criteria required to define the observations 3-experiences of individuals or is it the 1-experiences of individuals (observers) in keeping with the definition of an observer as the intersection of infinitely many computations? We need this to just explain what is a computer, alias, universal machine, alias universal number (implemented or not in a physical reality). Note that we do not assume a *primitive physical reality*. In comp, we are a priori agnostic on this. The UDA, still will explains that such primitiveness cannot solve the mind-body problem when made into a dogma/assumption-of-primitiveness. It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds. Then in AUDA, keeping comp at the meta-level, I eliminate all assumptions above very elementary arithmetic (Robinson Arithmetic). The little and big bangs, including the taxes, and why it hurts is derived from basically just Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) or just x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x Idea-wise, Wolfram and Von Neumann's cellular automata, also known as programs. I cannot parse this sentence. I am not saying there is a programmer (like Herr Doctor Scmidhuber has pondered) but there seems to be a pre-existing program, producing your Arithmetic. ? I assume arithmetic. No more than any scientists. I define programs in arithmetic. I don't define arithmetic in programs. We need to assume a sigma_1 complete reality, as we cannot get them from less. But to reason further, and extracts the big bangs from arithmetic, we need to define in RA, the notion of observers, reason, and this is done in the usual mathematical manner, which happens, for computer science, to be entirely build in term of numbers relations and functions, some describable, some not, in arithmetical sentences. Platonism is great, Platonism is a theorem in arithmetic, once you bet that it exists a level of description of yourself where you are Turing emulable. But the arithmetical realism used by comp is a far weaker hypothesis: it is just the hypothesis that the elementary closed arithmetical sentences, like Ex(x+1=2), are true, or false. It is assumed by 99,% of scientists. This is very important spudboy, I am just a humble logician which says that if you believe that you can survive with a digital brains (physical, if you want), then physics becomes a sub-branch of computer science, which is already (although not so well known) a branch of number theory. Mechanism has been a long time ally to materialism, but the discovery of the universal machine illustrates that mechanism is more an ally of the question to king Milinda or to Neoplatonism. but I am doubtful that the magic of self organization can come up with forms all on its own. It cannot happen from just logic and addition. It cannot happen from just logic and multiplication. It happens from the conjunction of logic, addition and multiplication. Before the chicken came the animal that preceded the chicken-maybe a raptor, forget the egg. The comp TOE, isolated through UDA and the AUDA, assumes the less. The TOE is already taught in elementary school. I have never heard one parent complaining of any form of brainwashing, or propaganda when taught in elementary mathematical propositions, so I think that doubting arithmetical realism is just obscurantist obstructive type of bad faith, and it hides the fact that comp leads to Platonism, in the philosophical or metaphysical, or theological, sense. I am a scientist. I put the assumption on the table. They are quite weak, and I reason from there. You seem to ignore the relations between computer science and arithmetic, but this is standard in theoretical computer science. You seem to assume a primitive physical universe, but the UDA shows that this does not even make sense, in case the comp substitution level exist. You need to convince yourself by following the reasoning, and study a bit of computer science. A tiny part of the arithmetical reality contains the whole of the computable, and the arithmetical reality is vaster as it knows about the termination or non termination of algorithm or class of algorithms, etc. The observers are emulated in that tiny parts of arithmetic, but what is true about them and about their experiences extends the whole arithmetical, the whole analytical, and even quite plausibly/arguably the
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 25 Dec 2013, at 21:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic approach. OK. Some other did already a good job. Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the alternative view). Compared to most scientists, I am realist on only a tiny part of arithmetic. Comp can be much less realist than most scientists, but sometimes being more realist shorten the proofs, and indeed that is how the observers accept new axioms from times to times. Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical structure Not at all. You miss the main point. The doctor needs realism in arithmetic to just explain to the patient what is meant by a digital brain, and what is Church's thesis. Then I just show that IF you believe that you can survive with it (in whatever reality exists making the turing emulation relatively possible) THEN the TOE is given arithmetic (or any Turing equivalent universal system), and physics become an arithmetical relative measure problem. It is a theorem. Not an idea that I propose because I would find it elegant. which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered. Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility. On the contrary, no mathematical theory at all can exists on numbers and machines. You confuse the mathematical theories, and the intended reality describe by those theories. We know today that the arithmetical reality cannot be described entirely by any effective theories. However there are a number of problems with this theory. I don't want to look presumptuous, but it is a theorem, thus in a theory, which assumes *much* less than most existing theories. It seems you do favor computationalism, so you apply or not the theorem. Or if you disbelieve it you can search a flaw. For one thing the edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to apply it to something, Now you are more realist than me. mathematicians evolves all the time, and the human mathematics changes all the time. It even deepened vertiginously. whereas the math that actually computes reality is active and continuously runs like software. Math does not compute. It is mathematicians which proves theorems. They don't compute either, even if *they* are computed at some level. A computer computes. Universal numbers can compute relatively to universal numbers. Computations can be seen as type of arithmetical relations. There is, in my view, no evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually running and computing reality's current state. Hmm, Read the UDA. here you are close to digital physics, or the idea that reality is a computation, but the UDA shows that this cannot work. We cannot singularize first person by their computational states. They are distributed in many computations. Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US, as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic scientific method and is the correct approach. Gödel, Church concerns digital processes, and many of their extensions on constructive ordinals. It is very general. It has nothing to do with humans, I mean, no more than the Boson H, or the galaxy Andromeda. Church thesis makes the notion of universal machine very general, and completely arithmetical, and independent of us or any aliens. That is much more independent of us than Andromeda. Anyway, I don't defend a truth, only a theorem. What I explain is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing, but of understanding or finding a flaw, which can be fatal or corrigible. So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of course, and doubly so, as human math is plunged in reality math. Of course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure that was first approximated from the math of reality, The math of reality, or the real math? I think that you confuse mathematical structures and the theories describing such mathematical structures. this will not help you to get the nuance when we treat the study of mathematical theories, mathematically. It is the difficulty of mathematical logic. but then widely generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Richard, and Bruno, I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time, That's funny, I've always lumped together presentist theories of time with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other times and other branches of the wave function. Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers. They have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience plainly showed them. -- Galileo and many worlds nonsense. Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light influences? Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious experience and appearances of physical realities. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. Richard On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: blockquote style=mar ... -- 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 02:24:04PM -0500, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. Of course there are two times here. The two observers in question start and arrive at the same spacetime coordinates, which is conventionally called coordinate time. However, due to acceleration of one of the twins, their proper times differ. What you call clock time appears to be what is usally called proper time, and what you call P-time is usually called coordinate time. What you call present moment appears to be what is conventionally called event - namely a single 4D spacetime point. It is not the same as the usual present moment concept of a space-like slice, which cannot be unambiguously defined. I'm not convinced there is anything new here... -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Spudboy, Good question. It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information about events flows computationally through networks of connected events. In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the knowledge of direct experience. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
On Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:24:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/26/2013 4:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. In fact you don't even need any participants, not even instrumental ones: Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation, arXiv:quant-ph/040214v1 Brent P.S. Edgar, I notice that when you post a reply it includes your prior post, as though you're replying to yourself (see below). But it doesn't include anyone else's comments, which are actually what you're replying to. If you know how, it would be good to change that so we could see what exactly you're replying to. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
John, All events without exception happen in the present moment. The present moment is the only locus of actual reality in which anything can happen. Of course those events can happen with different clock times according to relativistic conditions in different frames, but they always happen in the present moment. lt is very strange to me how no one seems to understand what I'm even saying with respect to two kinds of time, irrespective of whether they agree or not. I have to think more about what the reason for this cultural mental block is. Something very strange going on here to say the least! And of course Einstein did NOT prove that self-evident truth was completely wrong in any general sense, not in anyone's wildest dreams. He demonstrated only that a particular interpretation based logically on NON-relativistic daily experience was incomplete and needed to be extended. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Clock time simultaneity has nothing to do with the present moment which is an entirely separate type of time I call P-time. Did event X happen in the present time? There is no consensus, observers disagree. This is clear because observers with different clock time t values always inhabit the exact same present moment No, that is not clear because it's not true. Observer A says 2 events happened at the present moment, but observer B says they do not, there is no consensus and no way to tell who's right. The present moment is the most fundamental self-evident experience of our existence. Einstein proved that self-evident truth was completely wrong, and that's what made him so great. The idea of absolute time is as dead as the idea of a flat earth. And it is quite clear that all observers, no matter what their t values, all exist within this same P-time present moment. How do you figure that? 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: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 25 Dec 2013, at 22:29, LizR wrote: Bruno assumes a very minimal maths (peano arithmetic I believe) many variant are possible, but for the ontology I like to take Robinson arithmetic, which can be roughly presented in this way: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then I modelize the reasoner/observer by PA, which is RA + the induction axioms, that is 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x + (for all arithmetical formula F) the infinity (one for eaxh formula F) of induction axioms: (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x) It is the strongness of those induction axioms which makes PA into a Löbian machine, that is one having the G* theology. But I put them already in the epistemology. Just to help not mixing ontology and epistemology. PA = RA + the infinity of axioms (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x) Note that PA machines:numbers can be proved, by RA, to exist (in arithmetic). Like the UD, RA can also emulate the PA, and so we can do the interview of the infinitely PAs in arithmetic. RA can imitate PA, like Hofstadter can imitate Einstein by running his brain, or the Searle guy can imitate a chineese, that is without understanding it, nor becoming the people imitated. which I think can be found in reality. BECs for example appear capable of doing elementary arithmetic. Or are you suggesting that addition and multiplication don't exist in reality maths ? (Let me respectfully suggest you check out what Bruno is saying before deciding whether he's right or wrong - Thanks Liz. It is crazy how people forget to begin by the beginning, and to end with the ending, of a text, before saying what they think about it. though god knows you will have plenty of company in the camp which says Bruno must be wrong because - well, because he must be! I don't need to analyse the logic of his arguments, I can see they're wrong because ... well they just are. Because I say so! No, I'm not listening, la la la! etc). That's a good summary of the usual counter-arguments. You forget the shoulder shrugging and the eyes looking at the sky :( Of course sometimes they are genuine misunderstanding, and the subject is very complex. But some seem to judge without doing the home work, and that is sad/weird. Eventually they do the home work and just need to continue to deny, by fear of looking like behaving stupid, but of course that is when they do *look* stupid, and that is more sad/weird. 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
Brent, Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity! Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared universal present moment I keep talking about. It's quite a simple straight forward and intuitive concept, nothing esoteric at all Basic common sense really. Thanks Brent, I should have mentioned this myself Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:26:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 2 events were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on the circumstances; and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as large a value as you'd care to name. So I don't see why zero is more special or absolute than any other number. And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away can have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can have any effect on Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking what are things like right now on Andromeda? is a ambiguous question. Does it mean how things look in my telescope when light left Andromeda 2 million years ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future when something I do here can make a change there? So what does right now even mean? It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology. Now is defined by a comoving frame in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means anybody who sees the CMB at the same isotropic temperature is sharing the same now. But this is selecting a preferred frame based on empirical boundary conditions. Edgar refers to his P-time as being related to curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what he's talking about, but in spite of my asking several times he hasn't replied. 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 STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.
Brent, A more general approach than Wheeler's is to understand that all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, are effectively observers of that event. I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every connected network of events essentially functions as a mini-reality accessible only to event participants of their networks, and it is only through networks connecting through common events that those mini-networks become merged into sharable realities in which events become real because they become observable. It's a very important concept that leads to very important conclusions because it shows how GR and QM can be conceptually unified and all Quantum paradox resolved. I explained all this in my New Topic post titled something like Yes, my book does address quantum reality if you want to read more. Best, Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:16:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/26/2013 1:46 AM, LizR wrote: Interesting, at a brief skim they appear to be suggesting that phenomena like quantum erasure involve rewriting the past, or words to that effect.or have I got that wrong? Yeah, it's sort of like Wheeler's No event is a real event until it's an observed event. They're saying the observation *writes*, not rewrites, the past. But we don't want to leave conscious observation as a mystery; we know that observation by any macroscopic recorder is sufficient to fix the events. I think this can be accommodated in Bruno's theory by looking at it, not as changing or rewriting the past, but as post-selecting the past from the infinite threads of computation. 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: Why there is something rather than nothing...
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote: Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good starting hypothesis - show that some specific thing must exist, such as the facts of simple arithmetic, and see what happens. Descartes tried this when he started with his own thoughts (i.e., as we generally assume, with the idea of computation). Which is pretty darn close to assuming just abstract relations exist... My favourite answer to the question Why is there something rather than nothing? is There isn't! Hmm... You still have to assume something, like 0 and its successors, or the empty set + some operation adding sets from it (like reflexion and comprehension), etc. Logicism has failed. you can't prove the existence of zero in logic, still less of the successors and the laws to which they obey. Nothing *primitively* physical? Then I can be OK. Bruno (See Theory of nothing for more details.) -- 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 can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result I am referring to Bell's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem explained well here: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the state of the other particle 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement and something is clearly wrong with it. You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many decades since its publication. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, It is only QM, without wave function collapse. Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds. Which is less ridiculous? and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it. If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality, determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility, linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain the operation of quantum computers. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. Not quite. It implies that the properties of particles can be multi-valued, and when such a particle interacts with another the
Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
But you haven't really given an argument for why there has to be something happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for cosmology to make sense--that seems to be just an assertion of faith on your part. Cosmology is perfectly coherent as an attempt to determine the geometry of 4D spacetime and the matter/energy distribution within it, based on what we can observe in our past light cone. Dividing a 4D spacetime into a series of 3D hypersurfaces of simultaneity is what is known in general relativity as a foliation, and although some foliations may make calculations a bit easier, fundamental physics works the same regardless of what foliation you choose. So yes, in cosmology it's common to choose a foliation where curvature is constant across space, and the density of matter is constant too. But if someone came up to you and said I agree there must be an absolute present, but I think you're wrong about the foliation it matches up to, I had a dream where God told me it was this alternate foliation, would you have any reasoned argument for why your preferred foliation *must* be the one that lines up with absolute time, or is your view just as faith-based? Besides, this sort of foliation in which one picks homogeneous hypersurfaces of simultanity is only precisely-defined in an idealized cosmological model (the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric) where there are no local deviations in the density of the cosmic matter fluid. The local warpings from galaxies and such may be small on cosmic scales, but they would introduce an ambiguity into how to define the correct hypersurfaces of simultaneity that correspond to absolute time, even if one accepts your basic intuitions. Jesse On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity! Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared universal present moment I keep talking about. It's quite a simple straight forward and intuitive concept, nothing esoteric at all Basic common sense really. Thanks Brent, I should have mentioned this myself Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:26:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 2 events were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on the circumstances; and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as large a value as you'd care to name. So I don't see why zero is more special or absolute than any other number. And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away can have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can have any effect on Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking what are things like right now on Andromeda? is a ambiguous question. Does it mean how things look in my telescope when light left Andromeda 2 million years ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future when something I do here can make a change there? So what does right now even mean? It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology. Now is defined by a comoving frame in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means anybody who sees the CMB at the same isotropic temperature is sharing the same now. But this is selecting a preferred frame based on empirical boundary conditions. Edgar refers to his P-time as being related to curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what he's talking about, but in spite of my asking several times he hasn't replied. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All events without exception happen in the present moment. An event is specified by a unique time and space, a asteroid crashing into Chicxulub 66 million years ago was an event, but it did not happen in the present moment. Of course those events can happen with different clock times according to relativistic conditions in different frames, If time isn't what clocks measure then what do clocks measure? And what is time? but they always happen in the present moment. OK, but then the present moment is about as far from being unique as you can get, and is purely subjective too, but then everybody knew that long before Einstein. lt is very strange to me how no one seems to understand what I'm even saying with respect to two kinds of time, Count me as one of their number, I don't understand what you're talking about either, nor do I understand how postulating a new type of time helps us understand more about how the world works. 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: It's about time!
On 12/27/2013 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-) Alan Turing gets a royal pardon And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war and (virtually) invent computers, be driven to suicide by the police and they've kept his pardon back all this time. FFS, you dare to wait this long to pardon him for something that hasn't been a crime for god knows how long - the man who rewrite the history of the 20th century for the better - you aren't worthy to kiss his boots, you bunch of I find the pardon thing offensive. There's nothing to pardon. What they should do is apologise. Turing is the one who would have something to pardon. I absolutely agree. But did you read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 ? 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 ?
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result I am referring to Bell's theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem explained well here: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the state of the other particle 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement and something is clearly wrong with it. You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many decades since its publication. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, It is only QM, without wave function collapse. Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds. Which is less ridiculous? and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it. If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality, determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility, linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain the operation of quantum computers. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the universe spawns an entire
Re: Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
On 26 Dec 2013, at 19:06, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, and Bruno, I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative and based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions. Yes. yes doctor + Church's thesis, in the UD Argument , and only elementary arithmetic in AUDA. All theories are assumption. Science always put the assumptions on the table together with the means of testing and verifying arguments. Again the basic problem I see is that this is all a theory constructed of human math with no reason to believe any of it applies to the actual real math that computes reality. I reassure you. It is the exact contrary. Now, if you don't believe that 2+2=4, then there is nothing I can do for you. Reality continues to merrily compute the current state of the universe with no problems whatsoever in spite of all human mathematicians' theories. What do you mean by Reality? You are using the term like a God-of-the gap. That is like pseudo- religion or pseudo-science. Can anyone give me any empirical evidence at all that any of Bruno's theory actually applies to any of the computational structure of reality? I don't mean whether its a valid mathematical theory or not. I mean look and examine what reality is actually doing and tell me if it's actually doing what Bruno postulates it is. That after all is the only scientific test Just find the flaw in the argument. 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: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Very good, Edgar. Do you now consider Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, to not be involved as an observer, but instead, an unconscious participant? As merely a point of laser light striking an unaware photo-receptor? It is there to measure, but no cognition behind it. Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 12:33 pm Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, Good question. It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information about events flows computationally through networks of connected events. In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the knowledge of direct experience. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen lt;edga...@att.netgt; To: everything-list lt;everyth...@googlegroups.comgt; Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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
Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is the most simple kind of existence)? 2013/12/25 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net All, As I state in my book on Reality in Part I: Fundamentals, Existence MUST exist because non-existence canNOT exist. That is why there was never a nothing out of which something appeared. Therefore there is no need for a creator nor a creation event. The very notion is illogical and impossible This is the solution to the most basic of philosophical/scientific questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? This is the fundamental self-necessitating axiom of Reality upon which all else is based. It is the bottom turtle in the stack! Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. And it was for a long time. But recent polls of physicist have found it be favored by a large fraction if not a plurality. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version. All those unobserved, i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions. Only decoherence resolves them (almost) to classically distinct worlds. And as Scott Aaronson points out they can't really be entirely distinct since they have to interfere with each other destructively to eliminate the cross-terms. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those numbers you mention are finite. And in any case both QM and GR assume continuum backgrounds that imply uncountable possible states. Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong. And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that only approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables. From an epistemic persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so one should not be surprised that it predicts probabilities.. But that does not make the Everett interpretation wrong. 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
On 12/27/2013 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity! Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared universal present moment I keep talking about. Except that it depends on choosing an arbitrary local reference frame. It's not one that extends across the universe because different parts of the universe are moving (very rapidly) relative to one-another due to expansion. In GR this implies the absence of a time-like Killing vector and it is why there is no way to define globally conserved energy in GR. Brent It's quite a simple straight forward and intuitive concept, nothing esoteric at all Basic common sense really. Thanks Brent, I should have mentioned this myself Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:26:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/26/2013 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. It's all a question of simultaneity, sometimes observers can agree that 2 events were simultaneous, and sometimes they can not, it all depends on the circumstances; and the amount of disagreement can vary from zero to as large a value as you'd care to name. So I don't see why zero is more special or absolute than any other number. And nothing that happens in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away can have any effect on me for 2 million years, and nothing I do can have any effect on Andromeda for 2 million years. So even asking what are things like right now on Andromeda? is a ambiguous question. Does it mean how things look in my telescope when light left Andromeda 2 million years ago? Or does it mean Andromeda 2 million years in the future when something I do here can make a change there? So what does right now even mean? It does have a meaning in most models of cosmology. Now is defined by a comoving frame in the expanding FRW universe. Operationally it means anybody who sees the CMB at the same isotropic temperature is sharing the same now. But this is selecting a preferred frame based on empirical boundary conditions. Edgar refers to his P-time as being related to curvature of spacetime, so maybe this is what he's talking about, but in spite of my asking several times he hasn't replied. 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. -- 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 ?
Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the probability measure. For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50% alive or dead every time. I read the explanation on the basis of frequency but that did not make sense to me either. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. Please explain why Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light) I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. And it was for a long time. But recent polls of physicist have found it be favored by a large fraction if not a plurality. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same. That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version. All those unobserved, i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions. Only decoherence resolves them (almost) to classically distinct worlds. And as Scott Aaronson points out they can't really be entirely distinct since they have to interfere with each other destructively to eliminate the cross-terms. This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those numbers you mention are finite. And in any case both QM and GR assume continuum backgrounds that imply uncountable possible states. Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong. And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively. Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that only approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables. From an epistemic persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so one should not be surprised that it predicts probabilities.. But that does not make the Everett interpretation wrong. 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. -- 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 STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.
On 12/27/2013 10:06 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every connected network of events essentially functions as a mini-reality accessible only to event participants of their networks, and it is only through networks connecting through common events that those mini-networks become merged into sharable realities in which events become real because they become observable. So you explain the classical, irreversible nature of observations as a statistical consequence of many interactions, i.e. decoherence. 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
Thi common present moment (CPM for short?) sounds like something introduced to make the universe seem more intuitively obvious. There is no reason I know of (theoretical or experimental) to suggest that it really does exist, and several reasons (theoretical and experimental) to suggest that it doesn't. Indeed, it sounds rather cosily Newtonian - an eternal and absolute version of time, or to quote the great misnthrope himself, Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external. On a separate subject, I'm sorry but Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity! is an attempt at the old, old *ad hominem* strategy - by implication, everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't sane and clear. I've been trying to educate certain people around here in correct debating etiquette, by pointing out that this sort of thing weakens the arguments of the person saying it, rather than saying *anything whatsoever* against their opponents' arguments. ...With, I think, some success, judging by the results, which are to get more honest and more to the point debates, despite the odd lapse (some no doubt by me), rather than wasting time and energy berating those damned people who keep coming up with those pesky difficult questions. Perhaps you would be so good as to do the same, regardless of how infuriating people who don't grasp your vision may be. Take the magnificently cool, rational and polite Bruno Marchal as a case study, if necessary. On 28 December 2013 10:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity! Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for cosmology to make sense. The fact that clock times cannot be instantaneously communicated between the two does not negate that. That common, though admittedly non-communicable, 'right now' is the shared universal present moment I keep talking about. Except that it depends on choosing an arbitrary local reference frame. It's not one that extends across the universe because different parts of the universe are moving (very rapidly) relative to one-another due to expansion. In GR this implies the absence of a time-like Killing vector and it is why there is no way to define globally conserved energy in GR. -- 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 about time!
Turing is just a particularly vivid case - a poster boy - for the injustice suffered by I believe something like 50,000 people (I guess Oscar Wilde was an earlier one). As Brent pointed out, Turing may not have killed himself like Snow White biting a poisoned apple, as per the popular image, after all. It might have been a tragic accident. (And van Gogh may not have shot himself, either, although that seems less likely...) -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds. Actually, I have wondered about this. How do all these threads of computation which are assumed to exist in arithmetic actually manage to communicate with each other? -- 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: God or not?
The Tao that can be named... -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds. Actually, I have wondered about this. How do all these threads of computation which are assumed to exist in arithmetic actually manage to communicate with each other? -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Why there is something rather than nothing...
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote: Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good starting hypothesis - show that some specific thing must exist, such as the facts of simple arithmetic, and see what happens. Descartes tried this when he started with his own thoughts (i.e., as we generally assume, with the idea of computation). Which is pretty darn close to assuming just abstract relations exist... My favourite answer to the question Why is there something rather than nothing? is There isn't! Hmm... You still have to assume something, like 0 and its successors, or the empty set + some operation adding sets from it (like reflexion and comprehension), etc. Yes, there isn't! refers to the assumption of a material universe. What exists in this view is only what must exist, namely certain abstract relations (the famous 2+2=4 and 17 being prime). If one can get the rest (or the appearance thereof) to drop out somehow from things which are logical and/or mathematical necessities, you will have answered that age old question Why is there something rather than nothing? - this is why I have a lot of time and indeed admiration for comp, and also Max Tegmark's MUH, because they are both trying to do this. I have always been interested in this question, but many answers seem to just push it back onto something else, God being the main offender. -- 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: Why there is something rather than nothing...
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is the most simple kind of existence)? We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here? -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear LizR, Multi-solipsism, exactly! We each live in our very own world and all interactions between pairs of separable entities are supported at lower levels where the pair collapse to a single entity. This would be very similar to Bruno's substitution level. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves. The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on which it is based. So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can interact with and affect the consciousness of other people. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear Jason, Interleaving below. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves. I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument because it seems to assume that the probability distribution of spontaneous BBs is independent of the complexity of the content of the minds associated with those brains. I have been studying this relationship between complexity or expressiveness of a B.B. My first guesstimation is that there is something like a Zift's Law in the distribution: the more expressive a BB the less chance it has to exist and evolve at least one cycle of its computation. (After all, computers have to be able to run one clock cycle to be said that they actually compute some program...) The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. RIght, but how fast do they get rarer? They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on which it is based. How do you estimate this? Are you assuming that a lot of data can be compressed using symmetries and redundancies. This looks like a Kolmogorov complexity/entropy... So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can interact with and affect the consciousness of other people. From my reasoning, the appearance that we are in the same universe is a by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations that are each of us. In other words, there are many computations that are running Stephen that are identical to and thus are the same computation to many of the computations that are running Jason. This gives an overlap between our worlds and thus the appearance of a common world for some collection of observers. The cool thing is that this implies that there are underlaps; computations that are not shared or bisimilar between all of us. COuld those be the ones that we identify as ourselves? Jason -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 12:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves. The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on which it is based. This sounds like a way to get Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis out of comp. It also sounds like a way to get Edgar Owen's cellular automaton universe, or whatever it should be called (though not the part about the present moment being the only thing that exists, but that's an unnecessary add-on anyway imho). -- 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.
Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
All, I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal present moment across so here's another approach with a thought experiment To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any disagreement? Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San Francisco. Do they share the same common present moment? In other words is the one in San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what) at the exact same time the one in New is doing something? Yes, of course they do share the same present moment. Any disagreement? Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same relativistic frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion and the gravities of their planets are exactly the same so that clock time is passing at the exact same rate on both their clocks. Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic circumstances of the previous two examples so there can be no relativistic considerations. Do these two observers also share the exact same present moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only do they share the exact same present moment but they also share the exact same clock time t value. Any disagreement? OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards accepting my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now must agree that there is at least a common universal present moment across the universe for all observers in the same relativistic frame. Agreed? Edgar -- 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
On 28 December 2013 12:57, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal present moment across so here's another approach with a thought experiment Au contraire, the idea is really simple, and I imagine everyone understands what you are getting at. It just appears to contradict our best understanding of how the universe works. A Common Universal Present is how Newton envisaged time, and presumably how he would have envisaged it even if he'd known that light has a finite speed, and that nothing can move as fast as light. In a Newtonian universe, one could correctly say that there is a C.U.P. and that all the problems with finite communication speed don't change this. To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any disagreement? They are spacelike separated, so they can only communicate by signals travelling at or slower than light, which means that they are out of synch by maybe a few nanoseconds. (This sort of difference is actually important in the stock market, where shares are bought and sold by computers, and their distance from the stock exchange can significantly affect their ability to respond to changes.) Whether one considers objects which are spacelike separated to share a common present moment seems like a matter of preference, or maybe of definition. They can't communicate instantaneously, so neither is able to influence the other except (say) 5 nanoseconds in their own future. However, the plane of simultaneity that one can construct for them by foliating space-time is their common rest frame, so one *could* say that they are in a common present moment. However some observers moving relative to them will disagree about the order in which they do things, which argues against a CPM. Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San Francisco. Do they share the same common present moment? In other words is the one in San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what) at the exact same time the one in New is doing something? Yes, of course they do share the same present moment. Any disagreement? I'm not sure what this means in a relativistic universe. They are moving at different velocities, and separated in space-time. Some observers will see them doing things in one order, some in another. I don't see how one can construct a unique present moment for them in any sense, in this case. Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same relativistic frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion and the gravities of their planets are exactly the same so that clock time is passing at the exact same rate on both their clocks. Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic circumstances of the previous two examples so there can be no relativistic considerations. Do these two observers also share the exact same present moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only do they share the exact same present moment but they also share the exact same clock time t value. Any disagreement? See above. Spacelike separated observers in the same inertial frame may be said to share a common present moment by definition, but they are still subject to the relativity of simultaneity. OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards accepting my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now must agree that there is at least a common universal present moment across the universe for all observers in the same relativistic frame. Agreed? No. If you can come up with a convincing refutation of the relativity of simultaneity, I may do so, although it seems to me that you are just saying one particular reference frame is prviileged (maybe some argument could be made to privilege the comoving volume frame or whatever it's called - the one that goes with the cosmic flow (man! :) But it will take a lot of convincing to overcome the equivalence principle etc. -- 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..
Have you considered that people understand what you mean, but just don't *agree* with your intuition? I am an eternalist rather than a presentist (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) for a discussion of the two ideas), so I don't think your observers in New York and San Francisco share a common present moment in any objective sense, and even the ones standing next to each other don't precisely, except in the limit as their size and distance from each other goes to zero. Different inertial frames would disagree on the precise picosecond reading of one person's clock at the same time that the other person's clock shows a particular precise reading (though there is a limit to how much the frames can disagree, which gets smaller as the distance between the observers with clocks shrinks), and all these frames are equally valid (regardless of whether the observers share a common rest frame or not--the fact that they might share a common frame wouldn't somehow invalidate the perspective of other frames). Perhaps the problem is not that we eternalists can't understand presentism, but that you are actually having some trouble even imagining what eternalism really means? If so, try this analogy. Say we have some pieces of rope embedded in a frozen block of ice. Now say we use an MRI machine to scan a series of 2D cross-sections of the ice and then use each cross-section as a frame in an animated movie, we may see the cross-sections of each piece of rope moving around relative to one another, but in the original block of ice this just corresponds to the ropes' static shapes bending around in different directions--if the axis perpendicular to the slices is labeled the z-axis, then we can say that the x and y coordinate of each rope varies as a function of z, but this is just a description of a shape rather than of movement (change with time). Further, we would be free to put the block of ice back into the MRI machine at a different angle so the new series of 2D cross-sections would be skewed relative to the first series, producing a different animated movie of rope cross-sections dancing around. But there has been no change in the 3D block itself or the shape of the ropes embedded in it, this is just a change in how we view it. That is pretty much how an advocate of eternalism or block time views things--what's real is the 4D spacetime with observers and other objects as 4D worms embedded in it, and there is no single correct way to slice this 4D spacetime up into a series of 3D cross-sections. Jesse On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal present moment across so here's another approach with a thought experiment To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they share the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any disagreement? Now consider those two observers, one in New York, one in San Francisco. Do they share the same common present moment? In other words is the one in San Fran doing something (doesn't matter what) at the exact same time the one in New is doing something? Yes, of course they do share the same present moment. Any disagreement? Now consider an observer on earth and an observer in some far away galaxy. But with the condition that they share the exact same relativistic frame in the sense that there is zero relative motion and the gravities of their planets are exactly the same so that clock time is passing at the exact same rate on both their clocks. Now are these two observers sharing the exact same present moment as well? Note that we just extended the exact same relativistic circumstances of the previous two examples so there can be no relativistic considerations. Do these two observers also share the exact same present moment as well? Yes, of course they do. Not only do they share the exact same present moment but they also share the exact same clock time t value. Any disagreement? OK, if you agree then you have to take a partial step towards accepting my thesis of a common universal present moment. You now must agree that there is at least a common universal present moment across the universe for all observers in the same relativistic frame. Agreed? Edgar -- 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
Re: How the STc principle (special relativity) puts both the arrow of time and a common present moment on a firm physical basis.
Brent, That's not what I say but roughly true. However the classical world is mostly a construct of internal mental models of the external computational reality rather than being an actual external physical world. When we study how minds simulate and model external reality this becomes clear as I explain in Part IV: Mind and Reality of my book. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:13:13 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:06 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every connected network of events essentially functions as a mini-reality accessible only to event participants of their networks, and it is only through networks connecting through common events that those mini-networks become merged into sharable realities in which events become real because they become observable. So you explain the classical, irreversible nature of observations as a statistical consequence of many interactions, i.e. decoherence. 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: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely
Mitch, Glad you seem to agree. I don't think about in those Wheelerian terms but that sounds pretty consonant with my thinking but there is a lot more to it as explained in Part III, Elementals of my book... Best, Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 2:13:29 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Very good, Edgar. Do you now consider Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, to not be involved as an observer, but instead, an unconscious participant? As merely a point of laser light striking an unaware photo-receptor? It is there to measure, but no cognition behind it. Mitch -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 12:33 pm Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, Good question. It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in the event he observes. An observation is always an event. Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent events to the particular event they imagine they are observing. E.g. a human observer does not actually observe the quantum event he is usually talking about except through a chain of other events terminating in his visual participation with a measuring device, which is of course another set of quantum events, since all events are quantum events. So, in a general sense, all participants in every event, even down to the particle level, act as observers of that event, and information about events flows computationally through networks of connected events. In my book on Reality I call this 'The Sherlock Holmes Principle' and it is the basis of all knowledge, both scientific knowledge and the knowledge of direct experience. Edgar On Thursday, December 26, 2013 4:14:04 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:Not to be dense, but what are you defining as participant versus observer? -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen lt;edga...@att.netgt; To: everything-list lt;everyth...@googlegroups.comgt; Sent: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 7:25 am Subject: Re: The 'Super Anthropic Principle' - why multiverses are not needed and thus very unlikely Spudboy, There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as an observer of that event. The theory of decoherence has rightfully superseded the old mistaken notion of an observer 'causing' a wavefunction collapse, if that's what you are referring to. Edgar On Wednesday, December 25, 2013 11:52:10 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:All, ST=spacetime, c=speed of light, thus STc Principle. To answer some of Jason's questions. Block time is wrong. Only the common present moment exists. All the comments Jason makes refer only to differences in clock times which are well known, but the important point is that all those differences in clock time occur in the SAME common present moment.. I find it difficult to understand why so many people can't get their minds around the difference which proves there are two distinct kinds of time. The past exists only as inferences from the present as to what states would have resulted in the present according to the currently known laws of physics. Therefore the past is actually determined by the present state of reality from the perspective of the present which is the only valid perspective. Therefore the logical network of past and present is absolute 100% exact and could not have been different in even the slightest detail. The actual currently state of the universe falsifies the very possibility of other pasts. This is another difficult concept for many. Only the future is probabilistic because it does not yet exist and has never been computed. But the past - present logical state has been actually computed and thus is completely deterministic now that it exists and it could not have been different in any minute detail at all. This solves the problem of the original fine tuning. Given the current state of reality which is all that exists, all other conceivable fine tunings are impossible. This is what I call the 'Super Anthropic Principle', and it negates the necessity and probably the actuality of postulating any multiverses and strongly implies our observable universe is most probably the only one that exists. Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. ... -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, Interleaving below. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves. I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument because it seems to assume that the probability distribution of spontaneous BBs is independent of the complexity of the content of the minds associated with those brains. I have been studying this relationship between complexity or expressiveness of a B.B. My first guesstimation is that there is something like a Zift's Law in the distribution: the more expressive a BB the less chance it has to exist and evolve at least one cycle of its computation. (After all, computers have to be able to run one clock cycle to be said that they actually compute some program...) The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. RIght, but how fast do they get rarer? It's hard to say. We would have to develop some model for estimating the Kolmogorov complexity (and maybe also incorporate frequency) of different programs and their relation to a given mind. They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on which it is based. How do you estimate this? The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. Similarly, all of the known laws of physics could fit on a couple sheets of paper. QM seems to suggest that all possible solutions to certain equations exist, and so there is no need to specify the initial conditions of the universe (which would require much more information to describe than your brain). Are you assuming that a lot of data can be compressed using symmetries and redundancies. This looks like a Kolmogorov complexity/entropy... Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced / instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role. So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can interact with and affect the consciousness of other people. From my reasoning, the appearance that we are in the same universe is a by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations that are each of us. In other words, there are many computations that are running Stephen that are identical to and thus are the same computation to many of the computations that are running Jason. Yes. We would be programs instantiated within a (possibly but not necessarily) shared, larger program. This gives an overlap between our worlds and thus the appearance of a common world for some collection of observers. Right. The cool thing is that this implies that there are underlaps; computations that are not shared or bisimilar between all of us. Yes, I agree. In some branches of the MW, perhaps you were born but I was not, or I was, and you weren't. COuld those be the ones that we identify as ourselves? Personal identity can become a very difficult subject, since there may be paths through which my program evolves
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. Thanks Edgar, If the wave-function does not collapse then the superposition of states is preserved. This was the essence of Hugh Everett's theory (which is known today as many-worlds). Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de facto many-worlds. but the self-evident experience As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience to rule out that all points in time exist. of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. ... -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Jason, You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've heard here today in all manner of respects! Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:56:44 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote: Dear Jason, Interleaving below. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.comjavascript: wrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves. I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument because it seems to assume that the probability distribution of spontaneous BBs is independent of the complexity of the content of the minds associated with those brains. I have been studying this relationship between complexity or expressiveness of a B.B. My first guesstimation is that there is something like a Zift's Law in the distribution: the more expressive a BB the less chance it has to exist and evolve at least one cycle of its computation. (After all, computers have to be able to run one clock cycle to be said that they actually compute some program...) The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. RIght, but how fast do they get rarer? It's hard to say. We would have to develop some model for estimating the Kolmogorov complexity (and maybe also incorporate frequency) of different programs and their relation to a given mind. They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on which it is based. How do you estimate this? The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. Similarly, all of the known laws of physics could fit on a couple sheets of paper. QM seems to suggest that all possible solutions to certain equations exist, and so there is no need to specify the initial conditions of the universe (which would require much more information to describe than your brain). Are you assuming that a lot of data can be compressed using symmetries and redundancies. This looks like a Kolmogorov complexity/entropy... Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced / instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role. So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can interact with and affect the consciousness of other people. From my reasoning, the appearance that we are in the same universe is a by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations that are each of us. In other words, there are many computations that are running Stephen that are identical to and thus are the same computation to many of the computations that are running Jason. Yes. We would be programs instantiated within a (possibly but not necessarily) shared, larger program. This gives an overlap between our worlds and thus the appearance of a common world for
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences etc are a form of computation at some level, the output (or trace) of the UDA, which I seem to recall is designated UDA*, will eventually generate those thoughts, experiences etc. Though if run on a PC it would probably take a few googol years to do so (and require many hubble volumes of storage space too, I imagine). However, arithmetical realism assumes that the trace of the UDA already exists timelessly. Similarly, all of the known laws of physics could fit on a couple sheets of paper. QM seems to suggest that all possible solutions to certain equations exist, and so there is no need to specify the initial conditions of the universe (which would require much more information to describe than your brain). This sounds like the Theory of Nothing again.? -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 14:03, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've heard here today in all manner of respects! Jason was shorthanding somewhat. I've expanded on his statement in my last post. -- 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 ?
Jason, See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse. Thanks Edgar, If the wave-function does not collapse then the superposition of states is preserved. This was the essence of Hugh Everett's theory (which is known today as many-worlds). Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying. As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, I agree with this. But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular vantage point. To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. or in quantum theory = the actual equations. If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago /bl ... -- 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close. On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:10:13 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present moment. Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface. What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science. Edgar -- 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
On 28 December 2013 14:09, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close. Teehee. You aren't the messiah, you're a very naughty boy. -- 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.
What are wavefunctions?
All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. Edgar -- 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
PIerz, Thanks for the laugh, though something smells fishy about your argument! Though clocks measure only clock time it is clear that present time exists as it is the most fundamental experience of our existence. Second P-time can be measured by Omega, the curvature of our hyperspherical universe which gives us the radius which is the P-time axis back to the big bang. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:09:24 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close. On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:10:13 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present moment. Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface. What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science. Edgar -- 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
Liz, Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event, and then ONLY in the case that relativistic frames are different. When the frames are relativistically mappable (no relative motion or acceleration) then t value simultaneity can always be established. But none of that applies to the notion of the same present moment in which all these relativistic effects occur. Clock time simultaneity is NOT the same as sharing the same present moment, as the different t values of the reuniting time travelers proves beyond a doubt. Edgar On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 4:25:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as a common present moment. -- 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: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
Pierz, Thanks for the laugh, but there is something very fishy about your PU theory! :-) Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:09:24 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can ever occur at the same time (in U-time), because every moment is Unique! Hence U-time. See what I did there? Of course, I can't prove this hypothesis because U-time is conveniently unmeasurable and incommunicable. But the implications are profound. I'm amazed nobody has realized this obvious truth before. But well done Edgar on getting so close. On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 6:10:13 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe. When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different clock times within the same shared present moment. Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions of this geometry all the time and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as distance in every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the hypersphere's surface. What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to my stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great example of how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important, if it isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense or science. Edgar -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi Jason,
I snipped the portion of the thread out to cut of the tail... Interleaving
in Blue.
I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that
most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and
short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running
computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life
adapts and evolves.
I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument because
it seems to assume that the probability distribution of spontaneous BBs
is independent of the complexity of the content of the minds associated
with those brains. I have been studying this relationship between
complexity or expressiveness of a B.B. My first guesstimation is that
there is something like a Zift's Law in the distribution: the more
expressive a BB the less chance it has to exist and evolve at least one
cycle of its computation. (After all, computers have to be able to run
one clock cycle to be said that they actually compute some program...)
The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and
therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such
as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain
experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific
program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer.
RIght, but how fast do they get rarer?
It's hard to say. We would have to develop some model for estimating the
Kolmogorov complexity (and maybe also incorporate frequency) of different
programs and their relation to a given mind.
{spk} Do you have an candidate toy models of a mind that would work? What
can be constructed following Bruno's idea of an observer: an intersection
of infinitely many computations (of finite length?)
Would any universal number do? Isn't a Universal number always at max
Kolmogorov entropy? If we add arbitrary prefixes to a Universal number,
does it remain Universal?
They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program
corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe.
It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe
the physical system on which it is based.
How do you estimate this?
The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program
that is identical to your mind. Similarly, all of the known laws of
physics could fit on a couple sheets of paper. QM seems to suggest that
all possible solutions to certain equations exist, and so there is no need
to specify the initial conditions of the universe (which would require much
more information to describe than your brain).
{spk} Sure! Any finite program will be smaller an an infinite one! LOL.
But I am skeptical of the claim that even if it exists, finding it is HARD.
If you don't actually have a means to implement it on a physical machine
what good is an existential proof of it in some theory?
This is why I often wonder if this entire conversation exercise in
futility! :_( What does it really mean to say that a mind is a finite
program when such has measure zero in the Reals (which is where we should
embed the NxN-N idea in the first place. I loath Kronecker's claim! It is
synonymous to Man is the measure of all things.
Are you assuming that a lot of data can be compressed using symmetries and
redundancies. This looks like a Kolmogorov complexity/entropy...
Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced / instantiated by
other non-halting programs may play a role.
{spk} Like citations or Friending. LOL, nice! But what prevents such a
scheme from being regular, generating a complete graph with a homogeneous
connectedness or a purely random connectedness?
Real world networks are, at best, small
worldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network
on average and thus are far different from what we expect from our
considerations of ensembles of NxN-N strings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network
A *small-world network* is a type of mathematical
graphhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics)
in which most nodes are not neighbors of one another, but most nodes can
be reached from every other by a small number of hops or steps.
Specifically, a small-world network is defined to be a network where the
typical distance *L* between two randomly chosen nodes (the number of steps
required) grows proportionally to the logarithm of the number of nodes *N* in
the network, that
is:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network#cite_note-1
[image: L \propto \log N]
So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can interact
with and affect the consciousness of other people.
From my reasoning, the appearance that we are in the same universe is a
by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations that are each
of us. In other words, there are many computations that are running
Stephen
Re: A simple incontrovertible proof there are two kinds of time and a couple of implications
On 28 December 2013 14:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event, and then ONLY in the case that relativistic frames are different. When the frames are relativistically mappable (no relative motion or acceleration) then t value simultaneity can always be established. I don't see how. Different observers will observe events taking place in the same inertial frame as happening in a different order. Their measurements are irreconcilable with the existence of a well defined 3-dimensional plane of simultaneity. (Unless you are dropping the equivalence principle, perhaps? Even then I'm not sure...) I won't insult your intelligence by spelling it out with a train moving at half the speed of light, mirrors, and a flash bulb going off, because you will have come across that sort of thing many times, no doubt. But you have yet to provide a refutation of what is called the relativity of simultaneity. -- 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: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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: What are wavefunctions?
There is certainly evidence that particles are small amounts of digital information. Garrett Lisi's ESTOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything for example assumes this, and it is part of the support for mathematical theories of reality like Tegmark's (imho). -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. My apologies, I meant the UD which short for Universal Dovetailer, not the UDA, which is the Universal Dovetailer Argument. You can't be serious! I am. As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've heard here today in all manner of respects! What, may I ask, is so ridiculous about the statement? The UD is a program that executes all programs. If your mind is a program, then it is executed by the UD. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:56:44 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, Interleaving below. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King step...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and point of view. The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the interactions of many observers -each one is an intersection of infinitely many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering scheme. Something doesn't seem right about this! It seems to suggest multi-solipsism or something along those lines - which doesn't make it wrong, of course. I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to my limited understanding. I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much larger, long-running computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life adapts and evolves. I agree. I have never been happy with the Boltzman brain argument because it seems to assume that the probability distribution of spontaneous BBs is independent of the complexity of the content of the minds associated with those brains. I have been studying this relationship between complexity or expressiveness of a B.B. My first guesstimation is that there is something like a Zift's Law in the distribution: the more expressive a BB the less chance it has to exist and evolve at least one cycle of its computation. (After all, computers have to be able to run one clock cycle to be said that they actually compute some program...) The starting conditions for these is much less constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much rarer. RIght, but how fast do they get rarer? It's hard to say. We would have to develop some model for estimating the Kolmogorov complexity (and maybe also incorporate frequency) of different programs and their relation to a given mind. They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the physical system on which it is based. How do you estimate this? The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. Similarly, all of the known laws of physics could fit on a couple sheets of paper. QM seems to suggest that all possible solutions to certain equations exist, and so there is no need to specify the initial conditions of the universe (which would require much more information to describe than your brain). Are you assuming that a lot of data can be compressed using symmetries and redundancies. This looks like a Kolmogorov complexity/entropy... Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced / instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role. So we are (mostly) still in the same universe, and so we can interact with and affect the consciousness of other people. From my reasoning, the appearance that we are in the same universe is a by product of bisimilarities in the infinity of computations that are each of us. In other words, there are many computations that are running Stephen that are identical to and thus are the same
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 28 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. I would expect any attempt at a TOE to at least do the above. It should also, of course, make unexpected and testable predictions. -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as UD* - I made the same mistake!) will *eventually* contain your mind. See my previous post for an elaboration. -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi Jason, Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to grok it. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as UD* - I made the same mistake!) will *eventually* contain your mind. See my previous post for an elaboration. -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 15:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi Jason, Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to grok it. This is something that I also find it rather hard to get my head around. I think the argument goes that the trace of the UD exists in arithmetic, along with all other computations, and indeed everything else (infinity is a big place, I guess...!) The hard bit is understanding how one state of UD* can know that it is part of a computation when it's just there (a bit like a slice thru a block universe, perhaps). Perhaps this involves something like Fred Hoyle's pigeon hole idea from October the first is too late - a fab book, by the way, as I imagine everyone here already knows. -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
I think friending is something to do with facebook, or similar social media, so I think SPK is saying that programmes which reference other programmes give them more reality. (Or something like that! :-) -- 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: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on. Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the second instruction of the second programme, and so on. This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash, or various other contingencies... This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes. ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong. :) -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made of that? :-) -- 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 about time!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-) Alan Turing gets a royal pardon And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war and (virtually) invent computers, be driven to suicide by the police and they've kept his pardon back all this time. FFS, you dare to wait this long to pardon him for something that hasn't been a crime for god knows how long - the man who rewrite the history of the 20th century for the better - you aren't worthy to kiss his boots, you bunch of I find the pardon thing offensive. There's nothing to pardon. What they should do is apologise. Turing is the one who would have something to pardon. I absolutely agree. But did you read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 ? Thanks Brent. Yes I saw it recently. I hope that the theory that it wasn't suicide is correct, but I'm still left with a nagging feeling that he just staged it very well. I didn't know he was also an experimentalist, to the point of having his own home chemistry lab. That made me like him even more... Childish as it may be, I still have this romantic idea of science that involves playing around with test tubes and weird contraptions. In any case, the chemical castration thing is monstrous. It is also fantastically ungrateful, given how crucial Turing's work was for the war effort. Cheers, Telmo. 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. -- 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 about time!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Turing is just a particularly vivid case - a poster boy - for the injustice suffered by I believe something like 50,000 people (I guess Oscar Wilde was an earlier one). Yes. Sometimes our species is really nothing to write home about. As Brent pointed out, Turing may not have killed himself like Snow White biting a poisoned apple, as per the popular image, after all. It might have been a tragic accident. (And van Gogh may not have shot himself, either, although that seems less likely...) -- 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: What are wavefunctions?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my questions. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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,
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is no pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one place in. Everything is being computed exactly in the fundamental non-physical dimensionless information space. What we call space is actually networks of dimensional relationships between quantum events that emerge from those quantum events. Empty space is unobservable and therefore not a part of reality. All that is observable is events, in this case specifically the dimensional relationships between the participants in quantum events imposed by the conservation laws. But his occurs in logical (non-dimensional) computational space, not a physical dimensional space. So in the double slit experiment the actual events are the decoherences of the electrons with the screen which produce exact dimensional relationships. The apparent wave behavior of the electrons passing through the slits is a non-observable backward inference based on the wavefunction equations which are not electrons spread out in multiple locations in a pre-existing space but the mathematical equivalent probabilities of how space could dimensionalize when those electrons decohere. This is a subtle theory, and hopefully I can explain further if necessary, or you can read Part III of my book. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: All, I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue. The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space. However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles). I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation. I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time? I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation: 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved? 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed? Jason However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed. -- 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: What are wavefunctions?
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. Huw Price's time symmetry also solves the paradox. Bell agreed with him on this, so I think it's probably a valid result even if not widely known. I'm not sure that Price's ontology is intended as a rival to Everett, however, although it may introduce modifications. -- 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: What are wavefunctions?
Liz, What I haven't deciphered in Lisi's theory is what its elementals are. He seems to have come up with a set of elemental particle properties that populate his E8 group exactly and completely but they do not all appear to be commonly recognized particle properties such as charges, spins, etc. Can anyone give me a list of what Lisi's group elements actually correspond to in particle physics? Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:23:07 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: There is certainly evidence that particles are small amounts of digital information. Garrett Lisi's ESTOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything for example assumes this, and it is part of the support for mathematical theories of reality like Tegmark's (imho). -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is accessible. How?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the integer
i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on. Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the second instruction of the second programme, and so on. If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible programs. This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash, or various other contingencies... This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its completion, instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point some time on the CPU. This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes. There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves instantiate other programs. Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely often. ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong. :) PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made of that? :-) :-) Good question, I haven't the faintest idea. I could have used while (i == i) but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over, it might fail. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are.
this also captures every instance of random numbers as well. What method is
deployed to ensure that a program is not just a regular random number
and not some random number prefixed on a real halting program?
Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the integer
i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on. Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the second instruction of the second programme, and so on. If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible programs. This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash, or various other contingencies... This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its completion, instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point some time on the CPU. This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes. There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves instantiate other programs. Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely often. I meant There is no *problem* Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state
of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and
Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can
evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a
true theorem, then how is it a fact?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the integer
i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Yeah, sorry, I re-read your post and realised I'd misunderstood, so I deleted my post (thinking you hadn't replied...I forgot the time delay and the fact we're in different reference frames :) On 28 December 2013 16:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on. Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the second instruction of the second programme, and so on. If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible programs. This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash, or various other contingencies... This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its completion, instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point some time on the CPU. This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes. There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves instantiate other programs. Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely often. ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong. :) PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made of that? :-) :-) Good question, I haven't the faintest idea. I could have used while (i == i) but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over, it might fail. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is accessible.
How?
We never know a prior if a program will halts or not. However, once a
program has reached a halted stated it is immediately apparent. If the
function name was willThisProgramHalt(), then I agree it would be a buggy
program. :-)
The UD as I wrote it executes all programs, whether they will halt or not,
but it never wastes time trying to run another instruction of a program
that has halted. This is only an optimization, and I added it only to
reduce the ambiguity of running another instruction of a program that has
halted.
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi Jason, The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact? That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not. If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows, like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
Cool!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is accessible.
How?
We never know a prior if a program will halts or not. However, once a
program has reached a halted stated it is immediately apparent. If the
function name was willThisProgramHalt(), then I agree it would be a buggy
program. :-)
The UD as I wrote it executes all programs, whether they will halt or not,
but it never wastes time trying to run another instruction of a program
that has halted. This is only an optimization, and I added it only to
reduce the ambiguity of running another instruction of a program that has
halted.
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is
it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/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
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are.
this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.
It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.
Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I don't see
how it can arise in arithmetic.
What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a regular
random number and not some random number prefixed on a real halting
program?
It don't see how it makes a difference.
Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?
I don't understand this question.. Could you clarify?
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
Jason, All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist. When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a fixed background to them these questions disappear. E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame. The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their creation. It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame was independent of that of the observer until a single common event connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become automatically aligned in a single dimensionality. Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. is certainly not true (more accurately does not apply) in this model. Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame (the measurement of whether it is alive or dead). We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other (because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference, there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then dimensionally aligned by some shared event. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your interpretation address the EPR paradox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory of many-worlds. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you, (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers work (which require the superposition to exist). 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts. If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years, yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the result of the computation comes from. However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled Yes, my book does cover quantum reality, or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my questions. Jason On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5,
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi Jason, The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact? That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not. It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic. If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows, like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.) Right. :-) The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal digit of Pi is 4. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers. (Consider
OTP encryptions).
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are.
this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.
It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.
Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I don't see
how it can arise in arithmetic.
What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a regular
random number and not some random number prefixed on a real halting
program?
It don't see how it makes a difference.
Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?
I don't understand this question.. Could you clarify?
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is
it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi jason, Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of deterministic are you using? On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Hi Jason, The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact? That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not. It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic. If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows, like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.) Right. :-) The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal digit of Pi is 4. Jason -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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: Bruno's mathematical reality
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model... On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi jason, Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of deterministic are you using? On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact? That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not. It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic. If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows, like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.) Right. :-) The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal digit of Pi is 4. Jason -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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.” -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th
state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel
and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can
evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a
true theorem, then how is it a fact?
The mathematical fact to which I am referring is only a basic and
straight-forward statement like the binary representation of the state of
UD after executing 100..00th steps is '101010010...0010. It is not a
question of whether or not that binary string refers to anything that is
true or not, only what its particular value happens to be.
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could contain a source of genuine randomness, in principle. I don't think the UD does, however. The definition of deterministic would be - gives the same output on each run (given that the UD has no input). On 28 December 2013 17:03, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model... On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi jason, Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of deterministic are you using? On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a true theorem, then how is it a fact? That depends on whether the UD is deterministic or not. It is. The evolution of any Turing machines is deterministic. If it is, then, its Nth state is a fact. (It doesn't need to be run or evaluated, and the Nth state may be a fact that nobody knows, like the googolth digit of pi, assuming no one's worked that out.) Right. :-) The fact that I remember drinking a glass of water is as much a mathematical fact about the UD, as the fact as the third decimal digit of Pi is 4. Jason -- 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/sqWzozazMg0/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.” -- 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 options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers. (Consider
OTP encryptions).
By we do you mean the UD or something else?
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated
to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are.
this also captures every instance of random numbers as well.
It is not clear to me what random means in arithmetical truth.
Randomness can appear from the perspectives of observers, but I don't see
how it can arise in arithmetic.
What method is deployed to ensure that a program is not just a regular
random number and not some random number prefixed on a real halting
program?
It don't see how it makes a difference.
Truth is not a measure zero set, or is it?
I don't understand this question.. Could you clarify?
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is
it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able
to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I
will write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute
one instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 a topic in the
Google Groups Everything List group.
To
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Jason, Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it. According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD stuff, but the truth is that in actual computational reality every logical element functions as a processor so all computations proceed at once in every cycle of time. This is the only way everything in the universe could possibly get computed. A computation here can't possibly wait for one on the other side of the universe! If Bruno's UD requires a single processor of reality it simply cannot describe actual computational reality. Edgar On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:41:39 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on. Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the second instruction of the second programme, and so on. If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible programs. This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash, or various other contingencies... This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its completion, instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point some time on the CPU. This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes. There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves instantiate other programs. Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely often. ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong. :) PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made of that? :-) :-) Good question, I haven't the faintest idea. I could have used while (i == i) but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over, it might fail. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers to
anything that is true or not, only what its particular value happens to
be. No no no! We can not make statements without showing how their proof
are accessible!
Consider the i-th through j_th values of pi's expansion in binary. If it is
a finite string, how do we know that it is a Turing machine program?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th
state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel
and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can
evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of a
true theorem, then how is it a fact?
The mathematical fact to which I am referring is only a basic and
straight-forward statement like the binary representation of the state of
UD after executing 100..00th steps is '101010010...0010. It is not a
question of whether or not that binary string refers to anything that is
true or not, only what its particular value happens to be.
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is
it computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the LISP programming language. I will
write a simple one in pseudo-code below:
List listOfPrograms = new List[]; # Empty list
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
# Create a program corresponding to the binary expansion of the
integer i
Program P = createProgramFromInteger(i);
# Add the program to a list of programs we have generated so far
listOfPrograms.add(P);
# For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one
instruction of it
for each (Program p in listOfPrograms)
{
if (p.hasHalted() == false)
{
executeOneInstruction(p);
}
}
# Finally, increment i so a new program is generated the next time
through
i = i + 1;
}
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are. If these statements are true
independently of you and me, then the executions of these programs are
embedded in arithmetical truth and have a platonic existence. The first,
second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's
execution are mathematical facts which have definite values, and all the
conscious beings that are instantiated and evolve and write books on
consciousness, and talk about the UD on their Internet, etc. as part of the
execution of the UD are there, in the math.
Jason
--
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/sqWzozazMg0/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 a topic in the
Google Groups Everything
