date:20140114



On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an  
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid  
in Jr. High School?


By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does  
in his Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logically  
complete because the next step is always computable because it's  
always being computed. Human math is not logically complete because  
humans can formulate well formed statements in math without first  
computing them from axioms, and ONLY THEN try to compute them from  
the axioms.


Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then try  
to reach them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next state  
from the current state which it can always do. Thus reality math is  
logically complete. Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated,


That is wrong. Gödel proves that for all effective theories, or all  
consistent machines.
"reality" math is not defined. If it is just "math", Gödel's theorem  
does not apply, because "math" is not a formal theory, but human math  
is also not formal or effective.






without changes to it's axioms to bring it in line with reality math.


All consistent axiomatic theories obeys to Gödel's theorem. You can  
add as many axioms you want, the theory obtained will obey to Gödel's  
incompleteness. Arithmetic is called "essentially" undecidable. It  
means that arithmetical theories and *all* their effective extensions  
obeys to the theorem.


Bruno





Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most  
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.


Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and  
which are the ones derived from those axioms?



1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the  
actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but  
NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent  
with the actual science (the equations) but not with the  
interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely  
wrong.
4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually  
computes the current state of the universe.
5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a  
physical, material world.
6. These computations produce a real universe state with real  
effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and  
presence of existence, what I call ontological energy.
7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The  
existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all  
other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past  
that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist.  
Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is  
possible because it is the only one that is actual.
8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present  
to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which  
we all exist.


etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which  
come from which you can judge...


If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any  
other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For  
example, in the first one you say "existence must exist because non- 
existence cannot exist". It would seem then that "non-existence  
cannot exist" is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence  
must exist.  Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean  
by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete?



The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of  
the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to  
a formal presentation of the theory as I have.



This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his  
philosophy. His were:


The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through  
certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also  
art, etc.).
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher  
kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall  
live or have lived.

There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly  
intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).

Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by  
composition.

Concepts have an objective exist

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:



  I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote.  
Interleaving.



On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider  
interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a  
low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of  
state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there  
will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be  
what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject  
to GR "adjustments" and so will not be nice and well behaved.


OK, but I do not assume any physical "theory" in the derivation that  
physics is a branch of arithmetic.


Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as  
"perceptions"? Could the "perceptions", however they may be define,  
include some means to distinguish one entity from another within  
those "perceptions". A crude "physics" theory might be equivalent to  
some method for an observer to make predictions of the content of  
its "perceptions", assuming some form of "memory" is possible...



What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR,  
or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.


I do not think that comp can be empirically "refuted" in the  
experimental sense of "hard science"! It addresses questions that  
are deeper than physics.


Yes, it addresses theological questions, like the technological  
reincarnation, and the arithmetical "reincarnation". It is much larger  
than physics. But the point is that physics is entirely part of that  
theology, making theology indirectly testable, and the physics, is  
entirely testable. That's the whole point: comp makes theology into an  
"hard science", thanks to its relation with computer science and  
mathematical logic.
Of course the physics intuitively extracted in UDA is not tractable,  
but then the translation of UDA in arithmetic, using the classical  
theory of knowledge (that we recover with the idea of Theaetetus in  
arithmetic) gives the propositional physics, which up to now is shown  
to be a quantum logic. We can test it to see if it gives a quantum  
computer in the physical neighborhood of the machine. The math are  
just hard, but the question is precisely formulated in purely  
arithmetical terms.


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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a "non-feminist" in the
21st century deserves to be shot.

So it's fortunate for Edgar that his ego, if not his theory, appears to be
bullet-proof.


On 15 January 2014 15:26, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

> *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
> compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
> believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
> selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
> healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open
> to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to
> share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
> down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
> could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in
> discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
> contact me at edgaro...@att.net. "
>
> And you said i didn't read things...
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Freq,
>>
>> But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
>>
>> You?
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
>>> finding a life partner.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 OK.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>
> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones
>>> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and
>>> answer your question.
>>>
>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with
>>> no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study
>>> what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to
>>> be
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/
>> first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/
>> researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>
>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>
>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-
>> artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>
>> This is too easy...
>>
>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

You won't get a sensible answer. Edgar is just playing with words.

He might as well have said "We're here because we're here because we're
here because we're here."


On 15 January 2014 18:20, Gabriel Bodeen  wrote:

> So you're assuming that "nothing" must mean "non-existence"?  Why?
>
> In any case, "Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist" is
> really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from
> it.  While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume
> them axiomatically, so I see a critical difference between:
> (1) Intrinsically non-existent things cannot exist
> and
> (2) The abstraction "non-existence" cannot exist.
> because there seems to be excellent reasons (e.g. Russell's paradox and
> "heterologicality") to believe abstractions need not be instantiations of
> the property they describe.
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:25:48 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Liz,
>>
>> That is the explanation
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 All,

 My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot
 exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something
 rather than nothing exist?'

 Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Why our fine tuning and not some other?

2014-01-14 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

So you're assuming that "nothing" must mean "non-existence"?  Why?

In any case, "Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist" is 
really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from 
it.  While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume 
them axiomatically, so I see a critical difference between:
(1) Intrinsically non-existent things cannot exist
and
(2) The abstraction "non-existence" cannot exist.
because there seems to be excellent reasons (e.g. Russell's paradox and 
"heterologicality") to believe abstractions need not be instantiations of 
the property they describe.

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:25:48 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> That is the explanation
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot 
>>> exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something 
>>> rather than nothing exist?'
>>>
>>> Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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.

Fwd: The Singularity Institute Blog

A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI about how to make an
AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing
excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30:

*Jacob*: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true about the state of
the world in 20 years?

*Eliezer*: Sure. You could be like, what color will the sky be in 20 years? It would be
like, “blue”, or it’ll say “In 20 years there won't be a sky, the earth will have been
consumed by nanomachines,”and you're like, “why?”and the AI is like “Well, you know, you
do that sort of thing.”“Why?”And then there’s a 20 page thing.

*Dario*: But once it says the earth is going to be consumed by nanomachines, and you're
asking about the AI's set of plans, presumably, you reject this plan immediately and
preferably change the design of your AI.

*Eliezer*: The AI is like, “No, humans are going to do it.”Or the AI is like, “well
obviously, I'll be involved in the causal pathway but I’m not planning to do it.”

*Dario*: But this is a plan you don't want to execute.

*Eliezer*: /All/the plans seem to end up with the earth being consumed by
nano-machines.

*Luke*: The problem is that we're trying to outsmart a superintelligence and make sure
that it's not tricking us somehow subtly with their own language.

*Dario*: But while we're just asking questions we always have the ability to
just shut it off.

*Eliezer*: Right, but first you ask it “What happens if I shut you off”and it says “The
earth gets consumed by nanobots in 19 years.”

I wonder if Bruno Marchal's theory might have something interesting to say about this
problem - like proving that there is no way to ensure "friendliness".

Brent

Original Message

Machine Intelligence Research Institute » Blog

The Singularity Institute Blog

MIRI strategy conversation with Steinhardt, Karnofsky, and Amodei

Posted: 13 Jan 2014 11:22 PM PST

On October 27th, 2013, MIRI met with three additional members of the effective altruism
community to discuss MIRI’s organizational strategy. The participants were:

* Eliezer Yudkowsky (research fellow at MIRI)
* Luke Muehlhauser (executive director at MIRI)
* Holden Karnofsky (co-CEO at GiveWell )
* Jacob Steinhardt (grad student in
computer
science at Stanford)
* Dario Amodei (post-doc in
biophysics
at Stanford)

We recorded and transcribed much of the conversation, and then edited and paraphrased the
transcript for clarity, conciseness, and to protect the privacy of some content. The
resulting edited transcript is available in full here
.

Our conversation located some disagreements between the participants; these disagreements
are summarized below. This summary is not meant to present arguments with all their force,
but rather to serve as a guide to the reader for locating more information about these
disagreements. For each point, a page number has been provided for the approximate start
of that topic of discussion in the transcript, along with a phrase that can be searched
for in the text. In all cases, the participants would likely have quite a bit more to say
on the topic if engaged in a discussion on that specific point.

Page 7, starting at “the difficulty is with context changes”:

* Jacob: Statistical approaches can be very robust and need not rely on strong
assumptions, and logical approaches are unlikely to scale up to human-level
AI.
* Eliezer: FAI will have to rely on lawful probabilistic reasoning combined
with a
transparent utility function, rather than our observing that previously
executed
behaviors seemed ‘nice’ and trying to apply statistical guarantees directly
to that
series of surface observations.

Page 10, starting at “a nice concrete example”

* Eliezer: Consider an AI that optimizes for the number of smiling faces
rather than for
human happiness, and thus tiles the universe with smiling faces. This example
illustrates a class of failure modes that are worrying.
* Jacob & Dario: This class of failure modes seems implausible to us.

Page 14, starting at “I think that as people want”:

* Jacob: There isn’t a big difference between learning utility functions from a
parameterized family vs. arbitrary utility functions.
* Eliezer: Unless ‘parameterized’ is Turing complete it would be extrem

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 15:16, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> LIz,
>
> Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
>
> Thanks! It's the least I can do considering the hours of amusement you've
provided.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 15:29, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

> P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
> Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who
> could be?
>
> Probably not in my neck of the woods (New Zealand) -- us Kiwi birds tend
to be a bit too "out there" for the likes of the sort of person I imagine
Edgar to be. But when I went to Google's home page recently I think I saw
something about Russian women looking for partners... or was it Thai... ???

I am starting to feel just a teensy bit sorry for Edgar now Although
his use of the phrase "non-feminist" is a little worrying for anyone
tempted to respond.

Or maybe he just can't spell "doormat".

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be 
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who 
could be?

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a 
> compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
> believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
> selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and 
> healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open 
> to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to 
> share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
> down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
> could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in 
> discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
> contact me at edgaro...@att.net. "
>
> And you said i didn't read things...
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Freq,
>>
>> But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
>>
>> You?
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
>>> finding a life partner. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 OK.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>
> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
>>> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
>>> answer your question.
>>>
>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with 
>>> no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we 
>>> study 
>>> what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to 
>>> be
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>
>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>
>> This is too easy...
>>
>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a 
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and 
healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open 
to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to 
share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in 
discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
contact me at edgaro...@att.net. "

And you said i didn't read things...

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
>
> You?
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
>> finding a life partner. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
 Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".

 Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
 :-)

 Edgar

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
>> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
>> answer your question.
>>
>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with 
>> no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study 
>> what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to 
>> be
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>  
>
>
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>
> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>
>
> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>
> This is too easy...
>
> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Freq,

But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.

You?

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
> finding a life partner. 
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Freq,
>>>
>>> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
>>> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>>>
>>> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
> "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
> answer your question.
>
> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with 
> no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study 
> what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to 
> be
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
  



 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

 http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html


 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

 This is too easy...

 Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent,

I didn't say that...

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Freq, 
>
>  Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>
>
> But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with 
> artificial neurons having the same input/ouput functions would not realize 
> an aritificial, conscious being?  You've already said there is no special 
> soul-stuff, it's just computational processes.
>
> 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

LIz,

Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!

Best,
Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one 
>>> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
>>> your question.
>>>
>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
>>> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
>>> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>>>
>>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>>
>>> This is too easy...
>>>
>>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>>
>>
> I would like to have a few words with whoever programmed him.
>
> His artifical nature is given away by his literal mindedness, his 
> repetition of canned responses, and his inability to understand how a 
> theory can be supported or undermined by a thought experiment. I guess 
> programming an autodidactic monomaniacal sociopath is easier than a real 
> person, but even so it's a pretty impressive achievement. And setting it 
> loose on the Everything list ... someone is laughing up their sleeve 
> somewhere! Doug Hofstadter, I'm looking at you!!
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter


On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Freq,

Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said "that 
could replace biological neurons one by one".


But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons 
having the same input/ouput functions would not realize an aritificial, conscious being?  
You've already said there is no special soul-stuff, it's just computational processes.


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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 14:59, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
> perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
>
> Lighten up and smile!
>

Actually I'm trying to restrain myself from ROFL at the moment, being at
work and all.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
finding a life partner. 

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> OK.
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Freq,
>>
>> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
>> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>>
>> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
>> :-)
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Jason,

 There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
 "one by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
 answer your question.

 You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
 basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
 is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be

 Edgar



>>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>>
>>> This is too easy...
>>>
>>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

So, all is explained. No wonder "he" doesn't get special relativity, with
its free-falling elevators and trains travelling at half the speed of light!

I can almost picture his response...

Albert,

There are no 'relativistic trains' that can travel near light speed. When
there are let me know, and I'll check what the time on the guard's watch is.

You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no
basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what
is actually true, not scientific romances, no matter how fashionable they
are thought to be amongst followers of Mr Wells, Mrs Shelley and Mr Verne.

EDGAR-9000

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

OK.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note 
> I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>
> Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one 
>>> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
>>> your question.
>>>
>>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
>>> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
>>> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>
>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>
>> This is too easy...
>>
>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one
>> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer
>> your question.
>>
>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no
>> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what
>> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>>
>> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>>
>> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>>
>> This is too easy...
>>
>> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?
>>
>
I would like to have a few words with whoever programmed him.

His artifical nature is given away by his literal mindedness, his
repetition of canned responses, and his inability to understand how a
theory can be supported or undermined by a thought experiment. I guess
programming an autodidactic monomaniacal sociopath is easier than a real
person, but even so it's a pretty impressive achievement. And setting it
loose on the Everything list ... someone is laughing up their sleeve
somewhere! Doug Hofstadter, I'm looking at you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz,

Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment 
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...

Lighten up and smile! 
:-)

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You 
> are starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade 
> me to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the 
> intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or - 
> of course - getting their heads around intelligent criticism.
>
> And they keep banging on about how they have a unique insight into the 
> nature of the universe...
>
>
> On 15 January 2014 14:42, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in 
>> the 19th century!
>>
>> I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to 
>> the moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some 
>> other things that are real as well - but not simulated human beings
>> :-)
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 John,

 The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world 
 we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered 
 through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume 
 otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can 
 imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or 
 may 
 not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that 
 out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even 
 remotely likely.

 Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper 
 subject of science...

 Yes, "just sci-fi" like heavier than air flying machines, robots and 
>>> rockets to the Moon.
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Freq,

Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note 
I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".

Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
:-)

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one 
>> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
>> your question.
>>
>> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
>> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
>> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
> http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
>  
>
>
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
>
> http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
>
>
> http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
>
> This is too easy...
>
> Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are
starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me
to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the
intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or -
of course - getting their heads around intelligent criticism.

And they keep banging on about how they have a unique insight into the
nature of the universe...


On 15 January 2014 14:42, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in
> the 19th century!
>
> I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the
> moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other
> things that are real as well - but not simulated human beings
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world
>>> we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered
>>> through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume
>>> otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can
>>> imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may
>>> not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that
>>> out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even
>>> remotely likely.
>>>
>>> Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper
>>> subject of science...
>>>
>>> Yes, "just sci-fi" like heavier than air flying machines, robots and
>> rockets to the Moon.
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz,

It's a lot less of "hunch" than the simulation theory in the first place.

Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that God 
created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY  the same theory as 
the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without the modern 
twist

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:47:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we 
>> are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not 
>> just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the 
>> simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, and 
>> human level capability to explore reality, the simulated being should be 
>> able to discover cues that give the simulation away.
>>
>
> "Should be able to..." So, so far it's just a hunch. Suppose the creators 
> of the simulation were intelligent enough not to leave any cues? You appear 
> to be claiming that in principle, it would always be possible. How, 
> exactly? 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one 
> by one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
> your question.
>
> You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
> basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
> is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ 


http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html

http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

This is too easy...

Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
> are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
> just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
> simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, and
> human level capability to explore reality, the simulated being should be
> able to discover cues that give the simulation away.
>

"Should be able to..." So, so far it's just a hunch. Suppose the creators
of the simulation were intelligent enough not to leave any cues? You appear
to be claiming that in principle, it would always be possible. How,
exactly?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz,

Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in 
the 19th century!

I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the 
moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other 
things that are real as well - but not simulated human beings
:-)

Edgar




On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we 
>> appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through 
>> our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise 
>> in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we 
>> live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a 
>> possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but 
>> there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.
>>
>> Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper 
>> subject of science...
>>
>> Yes, "just sci-fi" like heavier than air flying machines, robots and 
> rockets to the Moon.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz,

If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we 
are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not 
just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the 
simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, and 
human level capability to explore reality, the simulated being should be 
able to discover cues that give the simulation away.

Since we can determine the curvature of the space we live in without seeing 
it from the outside (angles of triangles) we should be able to determine 
the nature of any simulation we lived in as well.

Because there is NO evidence whatsoever that we do live in a simulation, 
AND the fact that it's an enormously non-parsimonious theory that adds an 
entire new level of reality inhabited by super beings with completely 
unlikely technologies on top of a universe which is already plenty complex, 
it is incredibly unlikely that we do live in a simulation, and absent any 
evidence at all for it I at least think it's a waste of time to give much 
thought to it no matter how 'cool' it might seem to sci fi fans.

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this 
>> question...
>>
>> Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', 
>> what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the 
>> details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill 
>> formed as asked
>>
>
> Yeah, unlike waffle about "it's really real because it's real in the real 
> actual world, really, because I say so" (insert eye-rolling emoticon here)
>
> OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular 
> scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last 
> night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't 
> worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether "you" are 
> actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion 
> that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you, 
> and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you 
> do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled 
> the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this 
> inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like 
> you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in 
> your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model 
> the part of your brain that stores them.
>
> So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be 
> earth-Edgar.
>
> Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a 
> virtual world, and if so, how?
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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 our fine tuning and not some other?

Liz,

That is the explanation

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', 
>> answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather 
>> than nothing exist?'
>>
>> Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Jason,

There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one by 
one".  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your 
question.

You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:35:09 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, 
>> and have zero consciousness.
>>
>
> Edgar,
>
> 1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious?
> 2. Do you believe replacing your neurons one-by-one with synthetic 
> (non-biological but fully functional) neurons would result in you losing 
> consciousness?
> 3. Do you believe if these synthetic neurons communicated wirelessly with 
> a computer to decide whether or not to fire you would still be conscious?
> 4. Do you believe if the computer contained the mapping of all the 
> synthetic neurons inside a file on its disk (rather than it being stored as 
> a structure inside your skull) that the computer decisions would still be 
> the same?
> 5. Do you think the calculations performed entirely in this computer 
> program would be any less conscious than when it was communicating 
> wirelessly to the synthetic neurons outside the computer?
>
> Do you think this entirely self-contained program on the computer would be 
> conscious in the same way you are with a biological brain?  If not at what 
> step do you answer "no"?
>
>  
>
>>
>> Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I 
>> can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
>>
>
> Why don't you just plainly say what the above means: "I believe you are 
> dumb because you asked that question."
>
> Jason
>
>  
>
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>  
>>> Brent, 
>>>
>>>  Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some 
>>> single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a 
>>> continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover 
>>> through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of 
>>> these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of 
>>> its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration 
>>> of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so 
>>> properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that 
>>> sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called 
>>> proto-consciousness.
>>>
>>>  Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is 
>>> pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness 
>>> is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to 
>>> computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some 
>>> level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal 
>>> computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what 
>>> its state is and how it is changing.
>>>  
>>>
>>> So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self 
>>> conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>  
>>>  So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how 
>>> consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the 
>>> machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational 
>>> consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly 
>>> determined by the operation of those actual structures.
>>>
>>>  Edgar
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

 On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
 > Brent, 
 > 
 > For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know 
 anything. They are 
 > completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with 
 reality in your 
 > zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually 
 having this 
 > discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know 
 things"? 

 Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a 
 consequence of 
 your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to "know things"? 
  You never answered 
 my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You 
 evaded it by saying 
 "conscious" wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and 
 kinds of 
 consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a 
 robot that had that 
 kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot "know

Re: Tegmark and consciousness

On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes  wrote:

> It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries
> and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of
> the totality.
>
> I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or give
an example.?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark and consciousness

2014-01-14 Thread John Mikes

Brent:

thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words!
 I lost track of him lately  in the West-Australian deserts (from where he
seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s)
by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him
indeed).
I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making
them fundamental to my developing agnosticism.

Brent, to your short closing remark:
I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of
consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain,
pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value "structure"
more than just material functioning.  And I wish I had such (your?)
alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it.

I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called
"science of consciousness". What I would have added is a date of yesterday
(and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier
(millennia?) similar concoctions)
.
And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all.

Well: what  *- IS -*  the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the
majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the
portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our
mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory).
(Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings)
It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and
the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the
totality.

Thank you, Colins (and Brent)

John Mikes

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
> made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
> progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
> becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically
> performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must
> exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a
> form of mysticism.
>
>
> Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some
> others that are structually similar are and that some others are not.  A
> plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the
> structure.  Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence.
>
> 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam  wrote:

> condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Teehee.

Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more
hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.

This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to miss
discussions with some real meat in them.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 09:23, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
> and have zero consciousness.
>
> Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I
> can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
>

It was based on your assertion that  "Again, you are making the mistake of
thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or
don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a
thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human
and possibly beyond."

A character in a video game has more intelligence and awareness of its
surroundings than a thermostat. So if it's a dumb question, it's based on
your dumb claim.

Also you are a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person (and going by comments
like the above, a rather stupid one).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on "How Spacetime emerges from
> computational reality". I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
> explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
>
> It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even commented
> on it. It's one of the main topics of my theory, I devote all of Part III
> of my book to it, but apparently it didn't even register with anyone...
>
> That's because so far you haven't come out with anything convincing on the
stuff we *have *registered. To paraphrase someone,

It is conceivable there is something to what you are saying, but until you
give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste any more of my time
thinking about it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> John,
>
> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
> appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
> our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
> in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we
> live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a
> possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but
> there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.
>
> Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper
> subject of science...
>
> Yes, "just sci-fi" like heavier than air flying machines, robots and
rockets to the Moon.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Terren Suydam

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
>> question...
>>
>> Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
>> what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the
>> details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill
>> formed as asked
>>
>
> Yeah, unlike waffle about "it's really real because it's real in the real
> actual world, really, because I say so" (insert eye-rolling emoticon here)
>
> OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular
> scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last
> night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't
> worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether "you" are
> actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion
> that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,
> and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you
> do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled
> the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this
> inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like
> you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in
> your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model
> the part of your brain that stores them.
>
> So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be
> earth-Edgar.
>
> Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a
> virtual world, and if so, how?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
> question...
>
> Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
> what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the
> details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill
> formed as asked
>

Yeah, unlike waffle about "it's really real because it's real in the real
actual world, really, because I say so" (insert eye-rolling emoticon here)

OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular
scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last
night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't
worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether "you" are
actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion
that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,
and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you
do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled
the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this
inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like
you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in
your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model
the part of your brain that stores them.

So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be
earth-Edgar.

Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a
virtual world, and if so, how?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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?

Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's
being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so
let's try again.

Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time symmetry
of fundamental physics could account for the results obtained in EPR
experiments?



On 15 January 2014 10:01, LizR  wrote:

> On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  >>> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at
> the quantum level.
>

 >> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
 device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as
 desired, you could connect it up to an H-bomb.

>>>
>>> > The dividing line appears to be roughly where decoherence occurs.
>>> Basically anything above a single quantum entity engaged in a carefully
>>> controlled interaction is liable to get its time symmetric properties
>>> washed out by interactions with other particles
>>>
>>
>> The nucleus of an atom is tiny even by atomic standards so it is
>> certainly at the quantum level, and in its natural state of existing inside
>> a huge chunk of irregular gyrating matter this tiny thing is constantly
>> subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from an
>> astronomical number of other clumsy atoms; and yet the half life of Bismuth
>> 209 is 1.9 * 10^19 years. Why?
>>
>
> Because that's how long it takes for the relevant particles to get over
> the potential barrier. But this is irrelevant. Atomic nuclei are (probably)
> already on the wrong side of the "entropy fence" in any case. They're bound
> states which can only occur under certain special cirumstances, namely when
> the universe expands and cools enough to allow them to form. And atomic
> nuclei haven't been used to violate Bell's inequality as far as I know.
>
>
>  >> It's just a fact, if time were symmetrical then you'd be just as good
>>> at predicting the future as you are at remembering the past, so you'd know
>>> the outcome of an experiment before you performed it just as well as you
>>> remember setting up the apparatus. But this is not the way things are
>>> because the second law exists. And the second law exists because of low
>>> entropy initial conditions. And I don't know why there were low entropy
>>> initial conditions.
>>>
>>
>> > OK. So the above statement of yours about predicting the future is
>> still false,
>>
>
> Yes it's false, I don't think this will come as a great news flash but the
>> truth is we're not as good at predicting the future as we are at
>> remembering the past. And the reason we're not is that time is not
>> symmetrical.
>>
>
> Except below the level of coarse graining at which entropy operates, that
> is correct. And I never claimed otherwise. As I keep saying, I'm only
> claiming this is relevant in special circumstances like EPR experiments.
>
>>
>> > To recap briefly -- the laws of physics are time symmetrical,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the fundamental laws of physics, the ones we know anyway, seem to be
>> time symmetrical. But that doesn't mean that time is symmetrical.
>>
>
> ...is just words. Stop nitpicking. If the laws of physics are time
> symmetrical, that has a potential influence on EPR experiments.
>
>>
>> > and most particle interactions are constrained by boundary conditions.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and that is why time is NOT symmetrical.
>>
>
> Stop playing with words. The time symmetry of fundamental physics is
> there, so it's perfectly valid to say time is symmetrical below the level
> of coarse graining needed to derive the 2nd law, and asymmetrical above it.
> (That's virtually a simple restatement of Boltzmann's H-theorem "for
> dummies".) The point is that symmetrical time may become apparent in EPR
> setups. You haven't yet given even a suggestion of a reason why it
> wouldn't, just a load of hand waving about stuff that is IRRELEVANT to EPR
> experiments, which are carefully prepared to avoid all the influences
> you've mentioned.
>
> Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that time symmetry of
> physics could account for the special situation which has to be created to
> obtain EPR results?
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>>
>>  >>> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at
 the quantum level.

>>>
>>> >> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
>>> device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as
>>> desired, you could connect it up to an H-bomb.
>>>
>>
>> > The dividing line appears to be roughly where decoherence occurs.
>> Basically anything above a single quantum entity engaged in a carefully
>> controlled interaction is liable to get its time symmetric properties
>> washed out by interactions with other particles
>>
>
> The nucleus of an atom is tiny even by atomic standards so it is certainly
> at the quantum level, and in its natural state of existing inside a huge
> chunk of irregular gyrating matter this tiny thing is constantly subject to
> the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from an astronomical number
> of other clumsy atoms; and yet the half life of Bismuth 209 is 1.9 * 10^19
> years. Why?
>

Because that's how long it takes for the relevant particles to get over the
potential barrier. But this is irrelevant. Atomic nuclei are (probably)
already on the wrong side of the "entropy fence" in any case. They're bound
states which can only occur under certain special cirumstances, namely when
the universe expands and cools enough to allow them to form. And atomic
nuclei haven't been used to violate Bell's inequality as far as I know.

 >> It's just a fact, if time were symmetrical then you'd be just as good
>> at predicting the future as you are at remembering the past, so you'd know
>> the outcome of an experiment before you performed it just as well as you
>> remember setting up the apparatus. But this is not the way things are
>> because the second law exists. And the second law exists because of low
>> entropy initial conditions. And I don't know why there were low entropy
>> initial conditions.
>>
>
> > OK. So the above statement of yours about predicting the future is still
> false,
>

Yes it's false, I don't think this will come as a great news flash but the
> truth is we're not as good at predicting the future as we are at
> remembering the past. And the reason we're not is that time is not
> symmetrical.
>

Except below the level of coarse graining at which entropy operates, that
is correct. And I never claimed otherwise. As I keep saying, I'm only
claiming this is relevant in special circumstances like EPR experiments.

>
> > To recap briefly -- the laws of physics are time symmetrical,
>>
>
> Yes, the fundamental laws of physics, the ones we know anyway, seem to be
> time symmetrical. But that doesn't mean that time is symmetrical.
>

...is just words. Stop nitpicking. If the laws of physics are time
symmetrical, that has a potential influence on EPR experiments.

>
> > and most particle interactions are constrained by boundary conditions.
>>
>
> Yes, and that is why time is NOT symmetrical.
>

Stop playing with words. The time symmetry of fundamental physics is there,
so it's perfectly valid to say time is symmetrical below the level of
coarse graining needed to derive the 2nd law, and asymmetrical above it.
(That's virtually a simple restatement of Boltzmann's H-theorem "for
dummies".) The point is that symmetrical time may become apparent in EPR
setups. You haven't yet given even a suggestion of a reason why it
wouldn't, just a load of hand waving about stuff that is IRRELEVANT to EPR
experiments, which are carefully prepared to avoid all the influences
you've mentioned.

Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that time symmetry of
physics could account for the special situation which has to be created to
obtain EPR results?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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 15 January 2014 05:33, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> > We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
>> description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
>> possible mathematical universe
>>
>
> Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we ever find a Theory of
> Everything we might find that classical physics is logically self
> contradictory.
>

We already know that it may contain singularities, which could be
considered at least physically problematical if not downright logically
inconsistent (especially by people who don't think anything real can be
infinite). Of course GR fails on that basis too.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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 our fine tuning and not some other?

On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist',
> answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather
> than nothing exist?'
>
> Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book

On 15 January 2014 08:21, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of
> something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of
> argument, at least when made public.
>
>
> So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you are
> embarrassed to admit it? :-)
>
> We all have out guilty pleasures!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
> informally.
>

You don't consider Newton's "Law of Gravitation" to be a formal theory? How
much more formal can you get than defining space and time and mass and
force then relating them all with

[image: F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\]
?

I'm guessing you mean something different by a "formal theory" to what I
would understand by that phrase.

When I ask Edgar for a formal theory I'd be delighted to get something like
Newton's law of gravitation rather than a load of hand waving verbiage.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
> and have zero consciousness.
>

Edgar,

1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious?
2. Do you believe replacing your neurons one-by-one with synthetic
(non-biological but fully functional) neurons would result in you losing
consciousness?
3. Do you believe if these synthetic neurons communicated wirelessly with a
computer to decide whether or not to fire you would still be conscious?
4. Do you believe if the computer contained the mapping of all the
synthetic neurons inside a file on its disk (rather than it being stored as
a structure inside your skull) that the computer decisions would still be
the same?
5. Do you think the calculations performed entirely in this computer
program would be any less conscious than when it was communicating
wirelessly to the synthetic neurons outside the computer?

Do you think this entirely self-contained program on the computer would be
conscious in the same way you are with a biological brain?  If not at what
step do you answer "no"?



>
> Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I
> can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
>

Why don't you just plainly say what the above means: "I believe you are
dumb because you asked that question."

Jason



>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>>  On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>>  Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some
>> single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a
>> continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover
>> through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of
>> these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of
>> its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration
>> of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so
>> properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that
>> sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called
>> proto-consciousness.
>>
>>  Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is
>> pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness
>> is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to
>> computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some
>> level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal
>> computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what
>> its state is and how it is changing.
>>
>>
>> So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self
>> conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how
>> consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the
>> machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational
>> consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly
>> determined by the operation of those actual structures.
>>
>>  Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> > Brent,
>>> >
>>> > For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know
>>> anything. They are
>>> > completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with
>>> reality in your
>>> > zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually
>>> having this
>>> > discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know
>>> things"?
>>>
>>> Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a
>>> consequence of
>>> your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to "know things"?
>>>  You never answered
>>> my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You
>>> evaded it by saying
>>> "conscious" wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and
>>> kinds of
>>> consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a
>>> robot that had that
>>> kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot "know things"?
>>>  Does the Mars Rover
>>> know things?  anything?
>>>
>>> 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-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

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you
> can judge...
>

I generally consider that *dualism* has too many basic concepts (as Stephen
will tell you :)

And anyone who understands their own ideas should be able to tell us what
is a basic concept and what is a derived concept.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> The "elements of the set" are the information encoding the current state
> of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that
> may be needs to be further clarified.
>

So let me get this right. You have a "theory" which "must be true" because
(a) you can't imagine that any alternative could be correct, and (b) you
can't get to grips with any of the objections that have been raised (I
don't count "I've already explained that" or "It's all in my book" or
"You're all idiots" as getting to grips. Anyone with an actual theory would
be happy to go over the details as often as necessary).

And on top of that you don't, yourself, know any of the details of how your
"theory" works.

Maybe "idea" or "vague hunch" would be a better term?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent,

Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, 
and have zero consciousness.

Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't 
believe you'd even ask such a dumb question

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some 
> single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a 
> continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover 
> through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of 
> these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of 
> its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration 
> of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so 
> properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that 
> sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called 
> proto-consciousness.
>
>  Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is 
> pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness 
> is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to 
> computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some 
> level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal 
> computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what 
> its state is and how it is changing.
>  
>
> So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self 
> conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal.
>
> Brent
>
>  
>  So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how 
> consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the 
> machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational 
> consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly 
> determined by the operation of those actual structures.
>
>  Edgar
>
>  
>  
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>> > Brent, 
>> > 
>> > For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know anything. 
>> They are 
>> > completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with 
>> reality in your 
>> > zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually 
>> having this 
>> > discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know 
>> things"? 
>>
>> Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a 
>> consequence of 
>> your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to "know things"? 
>>  You never answered 
>> my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You 
>> evaded it by saying 
>> "conscious" wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and 
>> kinds of 
>> consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a 
>> robot that had that 
>> kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot "know things"? 
>>  Does the Mars Rover 
>> know things?  anything? 
>>
>> 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-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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> John,
>
> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
> appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
> our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
> in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we
> live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a
> possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but
> there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.
>
> Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper
> subject of science...
>

Its looks like you still haven't gotten around to reading the simulation
argument (despite my having posted it multiple times). If you assert X, and
someone says, wait a moment doesn't Y imply not X, you can't just pretend Y
isn't there and keep asserting X.

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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent,

Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on "How Spacetime emerges from 
computational reality". I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I 
explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical. 

It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even commented on 
it. It's one of the main topics of my theory, I devote all of Part III of 
my book to it, but apparently it didn't even register with anyone...

Edgar


On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:27:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten 
> that idea I wonder? 
> > :-) 
> > 
> > There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that 
> exists by 
> > definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. 
> It's existence 
> > falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine other possible worlds 
> but they aren't 
> > REALLY possible because they don't actually exist. 
> > 
> > You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as 
> a whole. 
>
> No, I'm not.  I'm asking about quantum mechanics.  Are you denying that 
> there are 
> different possible outcomes in measuring the spin a particle along the 
> x-axis after it has 
> been measured along the y-axis?  We only observe one outcome.  So how does 
> your theory 
> model the apparent randomness? 
>
> Brent 
>
> > It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on "Why our Fine Tuning" 
> for a detailed 
> > explanation of why the logic of day to day things as expressed in 
> linguistic syntax 
> > misleads when one attempts to apply it to the universe as a whole. 
> > 
> > When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain 
> why other 
> > possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist is 
> what ACTUALLY 
> > 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

John,

The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we 
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through 
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise 
in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we 
live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a 
possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but 
there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.

Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper 
subject of science...

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:46:58 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated there 
>> is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the 
>> minds of biological organisms.
>>
>
> OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real deal or a 
> simulation made by some organism, almost certainly a non-biological one? 
> And is that organism a simulation made by something else? I don't know but 
> it's logically possible. 
>
> > Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is 
>> adolescent fantasy. 
>>
>
> It's largely a difference in quantity not quality. The difference between 
> adolescent fantasy and everyday occurrence is the amount of information 
> that can be processed.
>
> > Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know things"?
>>
>
> Not yet, and it might not happen for many trillions of nanoseconds, but 
> give Moore's law enough time and almost anything could happen.
>
>   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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that 
things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum 
from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and 
possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly 
in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration 
of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly 
speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the 
universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness.

Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an 
arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old 
generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness 
is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there 
are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what 
its state is and how it is changing.

So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self conscious - 
contrary to your previous dismissal.

Brent

So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. 
In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or 
otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its 
nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures.

Edgar

On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know anything. 
They are
> completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with 
reality in your
> zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually 
having this
> discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know 
things"?

Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a 
consequence of
your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to "know things"?  You 
never
answered
my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You evaded 
it by
saying
"conscious" wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and 
kinds of
consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot 
that had
that
kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot "know things"?  Does 
the Mars
Rover
know things?  anything?

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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)

There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by
definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. It's existence
falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine other possible worlds but they aren't
REALLY possible because they don't actually exist.

You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a
whole.

No, I'm not. I'm asking about quantum mechanics. Are you denying that there are
different possible outcomes in measuring the spin a particle along the x-axis after it has
been measured along the y-axis? We only observe one outcome. So how does your theory
model the apparent randomness?

Brent

It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on "Why our Fine Tuning" for a detailed
explanation of why the logic of day to day things as expressed in linguistic syntax
misleads when one attempts to apply it to the universe as a whole.

When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why other
possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist is what ACTUALLY
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book


On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and 
I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made 
public.


So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you are embarrassed to admit 
it? :-)


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: What are wavefunctions?

On 1/14/2014 8:33 AM, John Clark wrote:

> but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in
at this
moment given that we only know the macrostate

We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black Holes for
example, even contain microstates; in fact the present thinking (a minority disagrees)
is that probably they don't and a Black Hole can be completely described by just 3
numbers, its mass, spin, and electric charge. A Black Hole contains enormous entropy
because there are a gargantuan number of ways it could have been formed, but if you know
those 3 numbers then you know all there is to know about a particular Black Hole. And in
the real world only 2 numbers are important because the electric charge is always zero.

> For example, suppose we consider a very small 2x2 board with only 4 cells
[...]

What are the laws of physics in this new game? A 2x2 board is MUCH too small for the
traditional rules of the Game of Life to be applicable.

> And if the macrostate is "0 black:4 white" there's only one possible
microstate
(same for "4 black:0 white"), so this is the lowest possible entropy

I don't know about this new game of yours because I don't know what the rules are but in
the Game of Life a solid block of nothing but active cells would be in the lowest
possible entropy state because the fewest previous states could have produced it.
Actually I should have said the lowest impossible entropy state because NO previous
state could have produced it, zero.

A solid block of nothing but dead cells would have the highest entropy because more
previous states than any other could have produced it, and entropy is the logarithm of
the number of those states.

You seem to have a non-standard view of entropy in statistical mechanics. It is NOT the
log of the number of ways a macro-state could form. That would be ambiguous in any case
(do different order of events count as different ways?...different paths to the events?).
The entropy is the log of the number of micro-states consistent with the macro-state. A
black hole has entropy because it has a temperature, which implies that it has
micro-states. And the relationship between energy and temperature implies that the number
of micro-states is the event horizon area measured in Planck units. To say it only has
mass, charge, and angular momentum is just to give a classical macro-state description,
like saying gas in a vessel just has pressure, temperature, and volume.

Brent

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated there
> is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
> minds of biological organisms.
>

OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real deal or a
simulation made by some organism, almost certainly a non-biological one?
And is that organism a simulation made by something else? I don't know but
it's logically possible.

> Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is
> adolescent fantasy.
>

It's largely a difference in quantity not quality. The difference between
adolescent fantasy and everyday occurrence is the amount of information
that can be processed.

> Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know things"?
>

Not yet, and it might not happen for many trillions of nanoseconds, but
give Moore's law enough time and almost anything could happen.

  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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
>

That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one
physical universe.


>
> It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality
> but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time
> thinking about it.
>

Fine tuning, eternal inflation, no collapse theories, string theory,
arithmetical realism, to name a few.

Also, I could throw the same argument back at you: until you give me some
evidence this is the only possible universe that can exist, why should I
waste my time with the conclusions you draw from that?


As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists assume their must be
> multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after all.
>
> Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you..
>
>
What are your arguments? All I see is "I see no evidence for X so I won't
waste my time with X and instead will decide to believe X is false".  This
is not an argument, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence for many of the above theories I
mentioned, all of which have "multiple universes" as a consequence.

Jason




On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite.
>>
>
> You believe there is only one physical universe, right?  What is your
> justification for this?  How do you know there wasn't another big bang
> really far away that we cannot see?  Or for that matter another universe
> altogether, with different laws?  I see only assertions from you, but no
> reasons, arguments, justifications, etc.
>
>
>> See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real
>> and actual can be infinite
>>
>> We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate
>> physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it.
>>
>
> There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from
> existing?  Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big
> bangs, what does it get wrong?
>
>
>>
>> I don't assume any 'collapse of wave' I posit what best explains
>> reality as it is observed.
>>
>
> If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you
> reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the
> presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only
> one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many.
>
>
>>
>> There is not "only one" computation being performed in OE. There are
>> uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of
>> information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing
>> both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being
>> computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those
>> that are actually being computed,
>>
>
> Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were
> being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their
> existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under
> the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their
> tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use
> our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it
> before our eyes.
>
>
>> and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to
>> what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'?
>>
>
> I don't consider these wild "what ifs", these are legitimate questions,
> which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists.
>
>
>>
>> Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that
>> informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the
>> current logical structures of their information environments. They exist
>> and function within their information environments to the extent that
>> sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external
>> reality in its simulation of it.
>>
>
> So if every being only has access to their local environments, what
> justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities
> elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)?
>
>
>>
>> Biological organisms do function effectively in their information
>> environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as
>> internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to
>> make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings,
>> meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal
>> simulation of it.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>
>> The fact that we do exist an

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-14 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Thanks Terren,
>
> However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date.
> I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and
> almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has
> been extensively revised in the book and in my posts here. So don't expect
> me to defend things that are several years out of date and have been
> extensively rethought out that you find on that site.
>
> If you want to understand my current theories either read the book or read
> my posts here. The stuff on the site is pretty much irrelevant at this
> point
>
> On the other hand if you want to know what I do for a living and why I'm
> not always available to post here then take a look at my business site at
> http://EdgarLOwen.com .
>

Why didn't you post that site at the start? Your theory would have been
clear to the list that. You sell antiques. P-Time, one world, self-evidence
as truth because "it's there obviously from the past"...hmm, figures.

Hope your search is fruitful, though you may want to consider the formality
issues some have raised concerning theoremhood, because this might not just
mislead possible readers, but yourself as well. Everybody is enamored by
their own personal thoughts. Especially today. To mistake some performance
of confidence of personal views for science is like selling blueprints for
castles, without knowing they could be made of sand, to stay in antique
context.

But that's what's great about 3rd person independently verifiable
perspectives: pushing ourselves to spell it all out, on every level, so
that everybody has the means to verify. This, taken seriously, erodes
status, ideological schools of thought and their tyranny, and all our other
crutches that sell us the idea that we don't have to think. Heroes, Gurus,
Gods, Scientists, job titles and teachers included.

To thwart any elitism nonsense: I don't care too much about what some
public perceives to be "formal status" or "prestige". There are plumbers,
homeless people, and bus drivers more scientific, open, rigorous, and clear
than many ivy league idiots hiding in their ivory towers.

Because you use your judgement so carelessly however ("Why Bruno is so
obviously wrong...blah, blah" to Liz just now, for example), you indicate
your current attitude clearly. I ask of you not to hog the floor of the
list for reasons like spamming patronizing statements on people's work you
haven't read. PGC

>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:26:07 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>> By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's
>> theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/
>> edgar.shtml, there is some material there that presumably also appears
>> in his book.
>>
>> Terren
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Bruno,
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she
>>> was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 > Liz,
 >
 > Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
 > offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the
 > complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they
 > are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are
 > formalized. Is that fair?
 >
 > The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware

 > of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are

 > criticizing me because I don't have one?
 >
 > What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory
 > accurately describes reality or not is a much more important
 > criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics
 > described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its
 > current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted.

 Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
 informally.

 >
 > Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if
 > there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is
 > apparently quite tightly formalized

 The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in

 logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where
 the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF).

 > but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to
 > indicate it actually applies to reality at all.
 >
 > Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no
 > consistency with actual reality.

 Nobody can see or prove

Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness

2014-01-14 Thread Craig Weinberg



Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of 
Consciousness

A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes 
similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world 
as experience rather than “objective”. What is not factored in is the 
relation between local and remote experiences and how that relation 
actually defines the appearance of that relation. Instead of seeing agents 
as isolated mechanisms, I think they should be seen as more like breaches 
in the fabric of insensitivity.

It is a little misleading to say (near the end) that a spoon is no more 
public than a headache. In my view what makes a spoon different from a 
headache is precisely that the metal is more public than the private 
experience of a headache. If we make the mistake of assuming an Absolutely 
public perspective*, then yes, the spoon is not in it, because the spoon is 
different things depending on how small, large, fast, or slow you are. For 
the same reason, however, nothing can be said to be in such a perspective. 
There is no experience of the world which does not originate through the 
relativity of experience itself. Of course the spoon is more public than a 
headache, in our experience. To think otherwise as a literal truth would be 
psychotic or solipsistic. In the Absolute sense, sure, the spoon is a 
sensory phenomena and nothing else, it is not purely public (nothing is), 
but locally, is certainly is ‘more’ public.

Something that he mentioned in the presentation had to do with linear 
algebra and using a matrix of columns which add up to be one. To really 
jump off into a new level of understanding consciousness, I would think of 
the totality of experience as something like a matrix of columns which add 
up, not to 1, but to “=1″. Adding up to 1 is a good enough starting point, 
as it allows us to think of agents as holes which feel separate on one side 
and united on the other. Thinking of it as “=1″ instead makes it into a 
portable unity that does something. Each hole recapitulates the totality as 
well as its own relation to that recapitulation: ‘just like’ unity. From 
there, the door is open to universal metaphor and local contrasts of degree 
and kind.

*mathematics invites to do this, because it inverts the naming function of 
language. Instead of describing a phenomenon in our experience through a 
common sense of language, math enumerates relationships between theories 
about experience. The difference is that language can either project itself 
publicly or integrate public-facing experiences privately, but math is a 
language which can only face itself. Through math, reflections of 
experience are fragmented and re-assembled into an ideal rationality – the 
ideal rationality which reflects the very ideal of rationality that it 
embodies.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno,

'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality 
itself, not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means 
something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual things have 
individual localized existences, but existence (reality) itself is 
everywhere because it defines the logical space of reality by its existence.

The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which 
somethingness (the universe) was created.

Milk is created by female mammals in case you had some doubt?
:-)

Next question: Reality IS a computational MACHINE in the general sense of 
machine. Thus of course consistency applies to it.

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>
> > Jason, 
> > 
> > A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most   
> > basic axioms and concepts of the theory. 
> > 
> > 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 
>
> So you assume: 
>
> 0. non-existence cannot exist. 
>
> That is too fuzzy for me. The non existence of milk in my fridge seems   
> to be a persistent fact. 
>
> Also, we have almost invent logic to avoid expression like "existence   
> exist". What is existence? existence of what? 
>
> I think you could replace 1. with "something exists". In which case I   
> can agree. 
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 
>
> Consistent applies to theories or machines, or person, not to reality. 
>
> Reality should be the intended model (in the logician sense) of your   
> theory. You should not invoke the reality in your theory. This makes   
> you very near inconsistency. 
>
> This is really a meta-axiom, you are jet betting on rationalism. If   
> that is the case, I can agree. 
>
> Not sure what you mean by "logically complete". If it means that   
> "reality" satisfies all true propositions, then it is trivial. for   
> example the arithmetical truth is defined by the set of all true   
> arithmetical propositions. It can be seen as a theory, but not an   
> axiomatizable one. I avoid to use "theory" in that sense, as it leads   
> often to confusion. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the   
> > actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, 
>
> We can know that a reasoning is valid, but we cannot know that a   
> statement is true, in science. 
>
>
>
>
> > but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be   
> > consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the   
> > interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely   
> > wrong. 
> > 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually   
> > computes the current state of the universe. 
>
> So reality is a program. That is digital physics, and it makes no   
> sense. Read the UDA to grasp this. 
>
>
>
>
> > 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a   
> > physical, material world. 
>
> OK. That is a consequence of computationalism, and with evolving   
> defined in arithmetic. 
> How do you defined evolving? Without physical reality you cannot take   
> any physical term for granted. 
>
>
>
>
> > 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real   
> > effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and   
> > presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 
>
> That is a God-of-the-gap. You must avoid term like "real", especially   
> in axioms. 
>
>
>
>
>
> > 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. 
>
> In which sense. Does 17 exists? 
>
>
>
> > The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies   
> > all other possible realities. 
>
> That is either a form of solipsism, or an everything type of TOE. 
>
>
>
>
> > Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed   
> > because it is the only one that does exist. 
>
> ? 
>
>
> > Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is   
> > possible because it is the only one that is actual. 
>
> You seem to rely on  abnormal psychic power. 
>
>
>
> > 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. 
>
> Hmm... at least this explain why you ignore my posts of yesterday,   
> which does not exist. 
>
>
>
> > Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the   
> > present moment in which we all exist. 
> > 
> > etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which   
> > come from which you can judge... 
> > 
> > The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of   
> > the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to   
> > a formal presentation of the theory as I have. 
>
> You are using a lot of words like if their meaning were obvious. You   
> lack confrontation with others, but you don't seem to have the   
> necessary minimal amount of doubting you

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this 
question...

Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what 
you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of 
those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as 
asked

Edgar


On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:53:23 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've 
> programmed a number of them myself.
>
> Edgar
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> That's not "artificial intelligence". Completely different concept...
>>>
>>
>> No it isn't. If we could create an AI, we could put it inside a simulated 
>> world, and then it would be equivalent to a character living in a video 
>> game. So there wouldn't be someone "living outside the game, strapped to a 
>> couch with wires and tubes", in this particular case. Do you think it's 
>> impossible to create an AI, even in principle?
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
 On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is 
> adolescent fantasy. Is there some real person living inside the game? If 
> so 
> he has to actually be living outside the game (a la Matrix strapped to a 
> couch with wires and tubes) and thus subject to the actual laws of 
> reality.
>
> If someone is just a character in a video game then he is not a real 
> and actual being and totally irrelevant.
>
> I can't believe anyone would take this idea seriously...
>
> Lots of people take the idea of artificial intelligence seriously.

>>>  
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book

Liz,

Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited. 
That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere 
is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious.

As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a 
mass-energy content in one cell dilating it. That automatically produces a 
curvature in the rubber sheet around that mass-energy consistent with the 
effects of space curvature in GR.

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:52:24 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 16:49, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Sure, the particle property conservation laws that conserve the amounts 
>> of particle properties in elementary particle interactions, and the laws 
>> that govern the binding of elementary particles in matter. These are the 
>> fundamental computations that determine most of the structure of the 
>> universe
>>
>
> OK, but I would imagine most conservations laws don't require much 
> computation - aren't they more akin to storing (i.e. conserving) data?
>
>>
>> How and where is the code stored? There is no 'where' in a 
>> non-dimensional computational space. How it is stored I intimated in an 
>> earlier response of an hour or so ago. It's stored as combinations of code 
>> and data in the actual process of evolving computationally.
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by the code and data are stored "in the 
> process of evolving computationally"
>
>>
>> How do the computations decide what data they will interact with? The 
>> computations include the data they compute in one information structure as 
>> explained above.
>>
>
> Where does that data come from? Is there any interaction between adjacent 
> computations? (Are there such things as adjacent computations? If there 
> isn't, how does locality emerge?)
>
>>
>> What grid cells? Aren't you familiar with the standard rubber sheet model 
>> of GR? The rubber sheet has grid cells drawn on it.
>>
>> The grid cells drawn in embedding diagrams are there to show the metrical 
> properties of space-time, while the computations you're talking about are, 
> I believe, what *generates* space-time. I don't (as yet) see an obvious 
> connection between the two.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-14 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,

   I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an idea of
a mind. Even if such a mind is degenerate in that it cannot be ever
complete, it still have finite subsets that are indistinguishable from
finite minds. The eternal running of the UD is such a eternal process.
Replace the Parmenides' Being with Heraclitus' Becoming and Plato is
correct.
  We cannot forget that numbers, like any other representation can be
self-defining and thus the mind in the numbers is the mind that contains
the numbers, thus it is only neutral when both it and its infinite physical
implementations vanish into the Void.

Only the Void is neutral.


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
>>> basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which
>> are the ones derived from those axioms?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
>>> 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
>>> 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the
>>> actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT
>>> the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the
>>> actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the
>>> science, which in my view is often completely wrong.
>>> 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually
>>> computes the current state of the universe.
>>> 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a
>>> physical, material world.
>>> 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects
>>> because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of
>>> existence, what I call ontological energy.
>>> 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of
>>> reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible
>>> realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed
>>> because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine
>>> tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is
>>> actual.
>>> 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to
>>> be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come
>>> from which you can judge...
>>>
>>
>> If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as
>> then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For example, in the
>> first one you say "existence must exist because non-existence cannot
>> exist". It would seem then that "non-existence cannot exist" is an axiom,
>> and from that it follows that existence must exist.  Regarding the second
>> point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you
>> mean by logically complete?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the
>>> basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal
>>> presentation of the theory as I have.
>>>
>>>
>> This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his
>> philosophy. His were:
>>
>>
>>1. The world is rational.
>>2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through
>>certain techniques).
>>3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems
>>(also art, etc.).
>>4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and
>>higher kind.
>>5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall
>>live or have lived.
>>6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently
>>known.
>>7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is
>>thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
>>8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
>>9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
>>10. Materialism is false.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was
>> skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed
>> the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by
>>composition.
>>2. Concepts have an objective existence.
>>3. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals
>>with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly
>>fruitful for science.
>>4. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religi

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Jason,

Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an 
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr. 
High School?

By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his 
Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logically complete because 
the next step is always computable because it's always being computed. 
Human math is not logically complete because humans can formulate well 
formed statements in math without first computing them from axioms, and 
ONLY THEN try to compute them from the axioms.

Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then try to reach 
them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next state from the current 
state which it can always do. Thus reality math is logically complete. 
Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated, without changes to it's axioms to 
bring it in line with reality math.

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic 
> axioms and concepts of the theory.
>
>
> Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which 
> are the ones derived from those axioms?
>  
>
>
> 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
> 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
> 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the 
> actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT 
> the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the 
> actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the 
> science, which in my view is often completely wrong.
> 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually 
> computes the current state of the universe.
> 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a 
> physical, material world.
> 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects 
> because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of 
> existence, what I call ontological energy.
> 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of 
> reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible 
> realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed 
> because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine 
> tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is 
> actual.
> 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be 
> real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist.
>
> etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come 
> from which you can judge...
>
>
> If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as 
> then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For example, in the 
> first one you say "existence must exist because non-existence cannot 
> exist". It would seem then that "non-existence cannot exist" is an axiom, 
> and from that it follows that existence must exist.  Regarding the second 
> point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you 
> mean by logically complete?
>  
>
>
> The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the 
> basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal 
> presentation of the theory as I have.
>
>
> This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. 
> His were:
>
>
>1. The world is rational.
>2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through 
>certain techniques).
>3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also 
>art, etc.).
>4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and 
>higher kind. 
>5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall 
>live or have lived.
>6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently 
>known.
>7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is 
>thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). 
>8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
>9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
>10. Materialism is false.
>11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by 
>composition. 
>12. Concepts have an objective existence.
>13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals 
>with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly 
>fruitful for science.
>14. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
>
> Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds 
> like Godel's 10th.
>
> Jason
>
>  
>
> Edgar
>
>
>  
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrot

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent,

Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single 
state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous 
non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all 
biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an 
awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual 
structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the 
forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so 
properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that 
sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called 
proto-consciousness.

Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty 
much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is 
simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational 
reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of 
self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal 
computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what 
its state is and how it is changing.

So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how 
consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the 
machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational 
consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly 
determined by the operation of those actual structures.

Edgar

On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know anything. 
> They are 
> > completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with 
> reality in your 
> > zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually 
> having this 
> > discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies "know 
> things"? 
>
> Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a 
> consequence of 
> your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to "know things"? 
>  You never answered 
> my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You 
> evaded it by saying 
> "conscious" wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and 
> kinds of 
> consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot 
> that had that 
> kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot "know things"? 
>  Does the Mars Rover 
> know things?  anything? 
>
> 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: Tegmark's New Book



On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote:





On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:





On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the  
most basic axioms and concepts of the theory.


Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and  
which are the ones derived from those axioms?



1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete  
structure.
3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all  
the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and  
valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be  
consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the  
interpretations of the science, which in my view is often  
completely wrong.
4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually  
computes the current state of the universe.
5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a  
physical, material world.
6. These computations produce a real universe state with real  
effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space  
and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy.
7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The  
existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all  
other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past  
that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist.  
Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is  
possible because it is the only one that is actual.
8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present  
to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which  
we all exist.


etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which  
come from which you can judge...


If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any  
other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For  
example, in the first one you say "existence must exist because non- 
existence cannot exist". It would seem then that "non-existence  
cannot exist" is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence  
must exist.  Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean  
by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete?



The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of  
the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to  
a formal presentation of the theory as I have.



This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his  
philosophy. His were:


The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through  
certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also  
art, etc.).
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and  
higher kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall  
live or have lived.

There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is  
thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).

Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.


Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so  
was skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism.  
He missed the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett.





The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by  
composition.

Concepts have an objective existence.
There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals  
with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most  
highly fruitful for science.

Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.


All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger  
statement: 10 becomes "Weak materialism" is false, for example.


Bruno




Bruno,

What is the distinction between materialism and weak materialism? I  
tried to search on Google but found no clear answer.  Thanks.


Weak materialism is the belief in primitive matter, or the belief that  
matter must be assumed, and is not a derivable emerging notion. Both  
dualist and material-monist are weak materialist.


I would prefer to call that "materialism" simply. But I am forced to  
add "weak" because the term  "materialism" in philosophy of mind has a  
different meaning. It means "belief in *only* matter", the rest being  
emergent. It is opposed to dualism, which is weak materialism and weak  
mentalism. Materialism, in philosophy of mind is a material or  
physical monism.


To sum up:
weak materialism = belief in primitive matter.
weak idealism = belief in primitive ideas
materialism = belief in only matter
idealism = belief in only ideas.

Comp is eventually ne

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Brent,

Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that 
idea I wonder?
:-)

There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that 
exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is 
ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine 
other possible worlds but they aren't REALLY possible because they don't 
actually exist. 

You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a 
whole. It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on "Why our Fine 
Tuning" for a detailed explanation of why the logic of day to day things as 
expressed in linguistic syntax misleads when one attempts to apply it to 
the universe as a whole.

When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why 
other possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist 
is what ACTUALLY exists.

Edgar



On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:05:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are 
> you being purposefully dense?
>
>  I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", 
>  
>
> You wrote below, "No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds."  We're pretty 
> sure there's one possible world - since we're in it.  So either there's 
> just one possible world (this one).  Or there is more than one possible 
> world.  So which is it?  You're the one contradicting yourself here. 
>
>  I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual 
> simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. I even put 
> the words POSSIBLE and ACTUAL in caps to make it easy to understand.
>  
>
> Pay attention to your own logic. Stating there is only one actual world is 
> compatible with that being the only possible world, or one world actualized 
> out of many possible - hence my question.  I now take that you think there 
> are more possible worlds than the actual one we experience. Is that how you 
> allow for quantum randomness: one possible world is realized from the 
> random ensemble that QM predicts?
>
>  
>  Of course that doesn't completely falsify pink rabbits or any other kind 
> of alternate realty but there is no evidence for those things. Now you are 
> criticizing my theory because it doesn't explain things for which there is 
> no evidence whatsoever? Get real!
>  
>
> Where did I criticize your theory (except the relativity part)?  I just 
> asked questions.
>
>  
>  I'll let you spend your time constructing theories to explain what there 
> is no evidence for if you like. I have better things to do...
>  
>
> But when there are multiple possible worlds but only one actual world, 
> then a theory of everything needs to explain why only the one is actual.  
> Maybe that's beyond your theory, which is OK; not every theory has to be a 
> theory of everything.  
>
> Brent
>
>
>  
>  Edgar
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>  
>> Brent, 
>>
>>  No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. 
>>  
>>
>> So there is only one possible world.  That would seem to imply the world 
>> is determinstic.  How do you account for quantum randomness?  Are you 
>> assuming hidden variables or hyperdeterminism?
>>
>>  There are many ACTUAL simulations of a single computational reality, 
>> and all of those simulations are not arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly 
>> based in the actual logic of reality at least in their essentials. Because 
>> these are real world views of real biological organisms. They have to be 
>> accurate in their essentials for the organisms to exist and function.
>>  
>>
>> Yes that's all very well.  We and other beings model the world in our 
>> minds. And (we hope) those models are accurate.  But that does not 
>> logically entail that there cannot be other worlds with different physics 
>> and different beings making mental models of it.  Are you just asserting it 
>> as a contingent fact, or do you have some argument that only this world 
>> with its physics is possible?
>>
>>  
>>  I find it difficult to understand how you would think I believe in 
>> "many possible worlds with alternative physics, etc." when I've 
>> consistently argued just the opposite.
>>  
>>
>> So far as I can tell you've never argued that this is the only possible 
>> world.  You've just asserted that it is real and everything real is in it.  
>> That doesn't logically entail that no other "real" worlds are possible.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>  
>>  Edgar
>>
>>   
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>> On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>>> > Terren, 
>>> > 
>>> > No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to 
>>> consider not just 
>>> > what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but 
>>> the whole context of 
>>> > the simulati

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2014-01-14 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR  wrote:

>
> >>> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
>>> quantum level.
>>>
>>
>> >> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
>> device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as
>> desired, you could connect it up to an H-bomb.
>>
>
> > The dividing line appears to be roughly where decoherence occurs.
> Basically anything above a single quantum entity engaged in a carefully
> controlled interaction is liable to get its time symmetric properties
> washed out by interactions with other particles
>

The nucleus of an atom is tiny even by atomic standards so it is certainly
at the quantum level, and in its natural state of existing inside a huge
chunk of irregular gyrating matter this tiny thing is constantly subject to
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from an astronomical number of
other clumsy atoms; and yet the half life of Bismuth 209 is 1.9 * 10^19
years. Why?

>> It's just a fact, if time were symmetrical then you'd be just as good at
>> predicting the future as you are at remembering the past, so you'd know the
>> outcome of an experiment before you performed it just as well as you
>> remember setting up the apparatus. But this is not the way things are
>> because the second law exists. And the second law exists because of low
>> entropy initial conditions. And I don't know why there were low entropy
>> initial conditions.
>>
>
> > OK. So the above statement of yours about predicting the future is still
> false,
>

Yes it's false, I don't think this will come as a great news flash but the
truth is we're not as good at predicting the future as we are at
remembering the past. And the reason we're not is that time is not
symmetrical.

> To recap briefly -- the laws of physics are time symmetrical,
>

Yes, the fundamental laws of physics, the ones we know anyway, seem to be
time symmetrical. But that doesn't mean that time is symmetrical.

> and most particle interactions are constrained by boundary conditions.
>

Yes, and that is why time is NOT symmetrical.

  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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

Jason,

There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.

It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality 
but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time 
thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists 
assume their must be multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after 
all.

Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you..

Edgar




On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. 
>>
>
> You believe there is only one physical universe, right?  What is your 
> justification for this?  How do you know there wasn't another big bang 
> really far away that we cannot see?  Or for that matter another universe 
> altogether, with different laws?  I see only assertions from you, but no 
> reasons, arguments, justifications, etc.
>  
>
>> See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real 
>> and actual can be infinite
>>
>> We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate 
>> physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it.
>>
>
> There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from 
> existing?  Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big 
> bangs, what does it get wrong?
>  
>
>>
>> I don't assume any 'collapse of wave' I posit what best explains 
>> reality as it is observed.
>>
>
> If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you 
> reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the 
> presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only 
> one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many.
>  
>
>>
>> There is not "only one" computation being performed in OE. There are 
>> uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of 
>> information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing 
>> both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being 
>> computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those 
>> that are actually being computed, 
>>
>
> Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were 
> being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their 
> existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under 
> the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their 
> tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use 
> our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it 
> before our eyes.
>  
>
>> and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to 
>> what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'?
>>
>
> I don't consider these wild "what ifs", these are legitimate questions, 
> which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists.
>  
>
>>
>> Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that 
>> informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the 
>> current logical structures of their information environments. They exist 
>> and function within their information environments to the extent that 
>> sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external 
>> reality in its simulation of it.
>>
>
> So if every being only has access to their local environments, what 
> justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities 
> elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)?
>  
>
>>
>> Biological organisms do function effectively in their information 
>> environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as 
>> internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to 
>> make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings, 
>> meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal 
>> simulation of it.
>>
>
> I agree.
>  
>
>>
>> The fact that we do exist and function within our information environment 
>> PROVES we do know what is real and what is sci fi.
>>
>
> Descartes cast serious doubt on this and he hasn't been refuted in the 
> hundreds of years since making his ideas public. We can know that our 
> thought is real, and from there maybe guess that some thinker is real, but 
> beyond that the foundation becomes very shaky and you won't find any proof 
> that what you think is real in your perceptions correspond to reality, 
> unless you go so far as to say perceptions are the only reality. But then 
> you will fall into solipsism and immaterialism.
>
> Jason
>  
>
>> If our functioning works according to some set of rules then those rules 
>> are reality, if our functioning doesn't work then the rules we functioned 
>> by are s

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,

Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that  
she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long  
ago...

She was not really wrong. She alluded to the equations that Newton  
provided. She was restricting Newton to the more formal part of his  
discovery. For a logician, this is still informal, but at least it is  
mathematical, and the correspondence with nature are enough clear to  
make it testable and refutable (and refuted, despite a long period of  
wonderful explanatory successes).

For a logician, "formal" means that you give the alphabet, the  
grammar, the axioms and the deductive rules, so that if someone  
pretend to have a proof, we can check mechanically if the proof is  
valid.

Note that logicians reason informally, like physicists and  
mathematicians. They just work on the subject of formal systems, which  
are essentially machines, or generalization of machines.

But in the fundamental, it is very useful to make the ontology formal  
or at least precise enough, even if reasoning on it more informally  
after.

Bruno

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
> offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the
> complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they
> are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are
> formalized. Is that fair?
>
> The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware
> of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are
> criticizing me because I don't have one?
>
> What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory
> accurately describes reality or not is a much more important
> criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics
> described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its
> current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted.

Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.

>
> Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if
> there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is
> apparently quite tightly formalized

The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in
logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where
the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF).

> but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to
> indicate it actually applies to reality at all.
>
> Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no
> consistency with actual reality.

Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the
maker of the theory).

The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"?

> Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality

Then you cannot belong as object of talk  in your theory, and your
theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist,
or "highly non computationalist).

> because it clearly states that the computations of its computational
> reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real
> processes of nature, whatever they are.

terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be
defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of
computation, you should (re)defined that term too.

>
> Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated
> assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow
> even if it's doing nothing.

I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as
non sense many times on this list.

I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All*
scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for
example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming
arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a
big discovery.

> A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for
> whatsoever.

It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it.

> Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that
> initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the
> assumption itself isn't.
>
> I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of
> scientific method.

I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic
assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one.

> Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is
> its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed
> phenomena.

It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of
explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear
inconsistent.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message beca

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
>> basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
>>
>
> Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which
> are the ones derived from those axioms?
>
>
>>
>> 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
>> 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
>> 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the
>> actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT
>> the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the
>> actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the
>> science, which in my view is often completely wrong.
>> 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually
>> computes the current state of the universe.
>> 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a
>> physical, material world.
>> 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects
>> because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of
>> existence, what I call ontological energy.
>> 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of
>> reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible
>> realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed
>> because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine
>> tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is
>> actual.
>> 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be
>> real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist.
>>
>> etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come
>> from which you can judge...
>>
>
> If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as
> then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For example, in the
> first one you say "existence must exist because non-existence cannot
> exist". It would seem then that "non-existence cannot exist" is an axiom,
> and from that it follows that existence must exist.  Regarding the second
> point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you
> mean by logically complete?
>
>
>>
>> The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the
>> basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal
>> presentation of the theory as I have.
>>
>>
> This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy.
> His were:
>
>
>1. The world is rational.
>2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through
>certain techniques).
>3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also
>art, etc.).
>4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and
>higher kind.
>5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall
>live or have lived.
>6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently
>known.
>7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is
>thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
>8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
>9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
>10. Materialism is false.
>
> Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was
> skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed
> the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett.
>
>
>
>
>
>1. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by
>composition.
>2. Concepts have an objective existence.
>3. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals
>with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly
>fruitful for science.
>4. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
>
> All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger statement: 10
> becomes "Weak materialism" is false, for example.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
Bruno,

What is the distinction between materialism and weak materialism? I tried
to search on Google but found no clear answer.  Thanks.

Jason


> Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds
> like Godel's 10th.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> Edgard,
>>>
>>> You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what
>>> you are assuming at the start.  So what are those minimal assumptions you
>>> took as true at the start which led to your other deductions?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 Jason,

 I've already pres

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2014-01-14 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
> description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
> possible mathematical universe
>

Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we ever find a Theory of
Everything we might find that classical physics is logically self
contradictory.

>> if you believe in some hidden-variable theory, ANY hidden-variable
>> theory, then you know that if things are realistic AND local then Bell's
>> inequality can NEVER be violated; and that would be true in every corner of
>> the multiverse provided that basic logic and arithmetic  is as true there
>> as here.  But experiment has shown unequivocally that Bell's inequality IS
>> violated. So you tell me, what conclusions can a logical person can draw
>> from that?
>>
>
> > It tells us that either we must use a nonlocal hidden variables
> interpretation like Bohmian mechanics
>

Yes, things might be nonlocal.

>  or that hidden variables are wrong.
>

Yes, things might not be realistic.  And things might not be local or
realistic.

> Did you understand that in the sentence above that you quoted, I was
> saying that "there is nothing in principle preventing you from determining
> an exact quantum state for a system"
>

You can know the exact quantum state for a system, that is to say you can
know the exact wave function BUT that deals in nothing observable like
position or momentum; you must square that complex function for that and
even then it only gives you a probability not a exactitude. And it's even
worse than that because it is a complex function so two very different
functions ( F(x)=2 and F(x) = -2 for a trivial example) can produce the
same number when squared, and thus the same probability.

>> You said it yourself, the rules of the Game of Life are NOT reversible,
>> that means there is more than one way for something to get into a given
>> state. And the present entropy of a system is defined by Boltzman as the
>> logarithm of the number of ways the system could have gotten into the state
>> it's in now, therefore every application of one of the fundamental rules of
>> physics in the Game of Life universe can only increase entropy.
>>
>
> > You are failing to specify whether you mean "state" to refer to
> microstate or macrostate and thus speaking ambiguously.
>

Oh for heaven's sake, one of the great beauties of the Game of Life is that
the meaning of "state" is simple and crystal clear; although in that game I
don't know the dividing line between microstates and macrostates so I just
call them states.

> even with reversible laws there is more than one way to get into a given
> macrostate
>

No. If there are 2 different states of the universe that could have
produced things as they are now then there is no way to decide between them
and history is unknowable (just as it is in the Game of Life) and the laws
of physics are not reversible.

> The entropy is defined not in terms of some vague notion of the "number
> of ways the system could have gotten into" its present microstate,
>

You mean its present macrostate. And I see nothing vague about it.

>  > but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in
> at this moment given that we only know the macrostate
>

We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black
Holes for example, even contain microstates; in fact the present thinking
(a minority disagrees) is that probably they don't and a Black Hole can be
completely described by just 3 numbers, its mass, spin, and electric
charge. A Black Hole contains enormous entropy because there are a
gargantuan number of ways it could have been formed, but if you know those
3 numbers then you know all there is to know about a particular Black Hole.
And in the real world only 2 numbers are important because the electric
charge is always zero.

> For example, suppose we consider a very small 2x2 board with only 4 cells
> [...]
>

What are the laws of physics in this new game? A 2x2 board is MUCH too
small for the traditional rules of the Game of Life to be applicable.

> And if the macrostate is "0 black:4 white" there's only one possible
> microstate (same for "4 black:0 white"), so this is the lowest possible
> entropy
>

I don't know about this new game of yours because I don't know what the
rules are but in the Game of Life a solid block of nothing but active cells
would be in the lowest possible entropy state because the fewest previous
states could have produced it. Actually I should have said the lowest
impossible entropy state because NO previous state could have produced it,
zero.

A solid block of nothing but dead cells would have the highest entropy
because more previous states than any other could have produced it, and
entropy is the logarithm of the number of those states.

> If it starts out in a macrostate of maximum entropy [...]
>

Then nothing the laws of physics do to

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,

Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT  
infinite.

In what real world?

In all real worlds?

To define "not finite", you need second order logic.

To assume *one* finite reality is close to a blaspheme (grin) in the  
everything list.

Some people told me that the step seven is enough for the UDA result  
(physics = branch of elementary number theory), as they consider that  
a  "little finite reality", the way out of comp's consequence) at step  
7, is enough "absurdo" for them.

Personally I don't know, that's why there is a step 8.

The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the  
quantum vacuum.

Can you define "quantum vacuum" without assuming elementary number  
theory?

It seems to me that you take "reality" for granted, by ostensive local  
and personal pointing.

Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality  
of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that  
kind of argument, at least when made public.

On the contrary, I argue that nature has a simple (conceptually)  
*reason* to "exist" from the average universal numbers point of view.

For example, you can't get an infinite number of different TYPES of  
particles out of the quantum vacuum.

In which theory? As long as quantum gravitation is unclear, I would be  
cautious on such statements. I might be interested seeing a proof of  
this, in some theory, but even in that case, I would not conclude  
anything, unless the theory if extracted from comp, in which case I  
would still only make public "comp implies a finite number of type of  
particles". Also are anyons particles? Then I doubt your statements  
right now, as I can write a quantum computer program generating  
infinitely many sort of particles. Of course I will need a powerful  
magnet!

The set is very restricted to those actually possible in the  
Standard Model...

So you assume the Standard Model.

With comp, that's a sort of treachery. (This is not obvious at all,  
but should be understood "easily" from the UD-Argument).

You might appreciate the first seven step of UDA, as they prove this:

Either the physical reality is small, or physics is an arithmetical  
self-referential modality.

But step 8 eliminates the left option. I think, although when we talk  
on reality, we cannot avoid some use of Occam razor, which can always  
be annihilated by strong reification and ontological commitment.  
(That's why there are fundamentalists, creationists and people like  
that. Nothing can change their mind).

Bruno

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:29:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> William,
>
> No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same
> definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course
> theories aren't reality.
>
> In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can
> appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in
> my theory to include everything which could become possible.

Just an advise:

- when working on the fundamentals, avoid terms like "obvious, of
course, etc."

- when working in the interdisciplinary area, avoid terms like "well
accepted".

Note also that if you make a "little" generalization to include all
the possible, your assumed reality is no more finite, and this
contradicts some of your other posts. It is unclear, as your ontology
is unclear.

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.

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: Tegmark's New Book

Thanks Terren, 

However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date. 
I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and 
almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has 
been extensively revised in the book and in my posts here. So don't expect 
me to defend things that are several years out of date and have been 
extensively rethought out that you find on that site.

If you want to understand my current theories either read the book or read 
my posts here. The stuff on the site is pretty much irrelevant at this 
point

On the other hand if you want to know what I do for a living and why I'm 
not always available to post here then take a look at my business site at 
http://EdgarLOwen.com .

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:26:07 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's 
> theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml, 
> there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book.
>
> Terren
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she 
>> was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>>>
>>> > Liz, 
>>> > 
>>> > Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't   
>>> > offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the   
>>> > complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they   
>>> > are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are   
>>> > formalized. Is that fair? 
>>> > 
>>> > The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware   
>>> > of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are   
>>> > criticizing me because I don't have one? 
>>> > 
>>> > What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory   
>>> > accurately describes reality or not is a much more important   
>>> > criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics   
>>> > described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its   
>>> > current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. 
>>>
>>> Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work   
>>> informally. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 
>>> > Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if   
>>> > there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is   
>>> > apparently quite tightly formalized 
>>>
>>> The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in   
>>> logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where   
>>> the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to   
>>> > indicate it actually applies to reality at all. 
>>> > 
>>> > Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no   
>>> > consistency with actual reality. 
>>>
>>> Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the   
>>> maker of the theory). 
>>>
>>> The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"? 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality 
>>>
>>> Then you cannot belong as object of talk  in your theory, and your   
>>> theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist,   
>>> or "highly non computationalist). 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > because it clearly states that the computations of its computational   
>>> > reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real   
>>> > processes of nature, whatever they are. 
>>>
>>> terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be   
>>> defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of   
>>> computation, you should (re)defined that term too. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 
>>> > Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated   
>>> > assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow   
>>> > even if it's doing nothing. 
>>>
>>> I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as   
>>> non sense many times on this list. 
>>>
>>> I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All*   
>>> scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for   
>>> example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming   
>>> arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a   
>>> big discovery. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for   
>>> > whatsoever. 
>>>
>>> It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that   
>>> > initial as

Why our fine tuning and not some other?

All,

My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', 
answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather 
than nothing exist?'

The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist 
instead of something else?' Why is our universe as it is instead of being 
fundamentally different?

Our universe is as it is because of what I call 'the Extended Fine Tuning'. 
This includes the standard fine tuning of physics plus everything else that 
is necessary to our universe that cannot be derived from something else. 
The Extended Fine Tuning is what makes our universe what it actually is.

The extensions to the standard fine tuning (of which there isn't yet any 
consensus in physics but which basically consists of the irreducible 
constants of nature) necessary to explain our universe include things such 
as the basic laws of logic, the notion of an actual present reality that 
supports computationally evolving information, and whatever else is 
irreducibly necessary to explain our universe.

So the 2nd fundamental question reduces to 'why is our extended fine tuning 
the fine tuning that actually exists?'

There is actually a rather simple answer to this but to understand it one 
must be able to escape the constraints of our English syntactical 
structures, not an easy task for most

The logic of our linguistic syntax evolved to describe what I call 'The 
Logic of Things', that is the basic logical constructs that seem to govern 
our apparent daily interactions with our apparent material environments. 
And our language does this quite well and quite flexibly. However 
the syntactical constructs of this logic of things simply do not apply when 
we try to extend them to the universe as a whole. When this is understood 
we can proceed with our argument.

Now there is only one actual present state of the universe. It is absolute 
in the sense that whatever it is it is exactly as it is and there is no 
other actual possibility for what it could be because the actual fact of 
its existence conclusively falsifies all other possibilities.

Once this is understood we must conclude that the actual current state of 
the universe also conclusively falsifies all other PASTS than the actual 
past which it evolved out of all the way back to the big bang and fine 
tuning which also could not have been any different than they actually were.

We can always IMAGINE other possible fine tunings, but given the actual 
current state of the universe these other theoretical possibilities were 
not really possible at all!

This seems to contradict the logic of syntax in which we can reasonably 
speak of alternate possibilities for daily events. It is reasonable to do 
so because in the case of daily life we can actually reconstruct different 
initial conditions for event networks, So the effects of some event can be 
reasonably considered to have been different if the initial conditions are 
changed because we can construct and experience an actual scenario in which 
they are. Thus for daily events we can reasonably speak of alternate 
initial states.

However even here we must be extremely careful in our understanding and 
application of syntactical logic. Because we can never change an actual 
event sequence that has actually occurred. What we are doing is always 
constructing a new one and comparing that to the original rather than 
actually changing the original which is now unalterable and thus could not 
have been other than it actually was.

Now when we try to apply the logic of things to the original fine tuning we 
see there can be no possibility whatsoever of actually changing it, and we 
see that given the current state of the universe in the present moment the 
original fine tuning is unalterable, and thus it could not have been any 
different than it actually was even in the most minute detail. In fact that 
is also true of the entire past which given the current actual present is 
unalterable and could not have been different in the finest detail. In this 
sense the actual present completely determines the past that completely 
determined it in every minute detail down to every quantum event.

Thus the entire logical computational structure of past and present is 
completely determined and unalterable in every minute detail. Not a single 
iota of it could have been different that it actually was to evolve into 
the actual present that actually and absolutely exists right now. (Of 
course the future, and only the future is still subject to the constrained 
randomness of quantum events because it has never existed and thus is not 
deterministic.)

Thus the actual existence of the present as it actually is conclusively 
falsifies all other possible pasts back to and including the original 
extended fine tuning. There is no way we can go back and change the initial 
conditions, therefore the standard logic of things as embodied in 
syntactical logic simply do

Re: Tegmark's New Book

2014-01-14 Thread Terren Suydam

By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's
theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml,
there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book.

Terren


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was
> wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> > Liz,
>> >
>> > Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
>> > offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the
>> > complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they
>> > are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are
>> > formalized. Is that fair?
>> >
>> > The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware
>> > of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are
>> > criticizing me because I don't have one?
>> >
>> > What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory
>> > accurately describes reality or not is a much more important
>> > criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics
>> > described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its
>> > current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted.
>>
>> Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
>> informally.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if
>> > there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is
>> > apparently quite tightly formalized
>>
>> The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in
>> logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where
>> the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to
>> > indicate it actually applies to reality at all.
>> >
>> > Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no
>> > consistency with actual reality.
>>
>> Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the
>> maker of the theory).
>>
>> The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality
>>
>> Then you cannot belong as object of talk  in your theory, and your
>> theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist,
>> or "highly non computationalist).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > because it clearly states that the computations of its computational
>> > reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real
>> > processes of nature, whatever they are.
>>
>> terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be
>> defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of
>> computation, you should (re)defined that term too.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated
>> > assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow
>> > even if it's doing nothing.
>>
>> I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as
>> non sense many times on this list.
>>
>> I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All*
>> scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for
>> example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming
>> arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a
>> big discovery.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for
>> > whatsoever.
>>
>> It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that
>> > initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the
>> > assumption itself isn't.
>> >
>> > I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of
>> > scientific method.
>>
>>
>> I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic
>> assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is
>> > its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed
>> > phenomena.
>>
>> It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of
>> explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear
>> inconsistent.
>>
>> 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,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno,

Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was 
wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>
> > Liz, 
> > 
> > Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't   
> > offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the   
> > complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they   
> > are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are   
> > formalized. Is that fair? 
> > 
> > The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware   
> > of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are   
> > criticizing me because I don't have one? 
> > 
> > What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory   
> > accurately describes reality or not is a much more important   
> > criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics   
> > described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its   
> > current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. 
>
> Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work   
> informally. 
>
>
>
> > 
> > Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if   
> > there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is   
> > apparently quite tightly formalized 
>
> The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in   
> logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where   
> the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). 
>
>
>
>
> > but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to   
> > indicate it actually applies to reality at all. 
> > 
> > Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no   
> > consistency with actual reality. 
>
> Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the   
> maker of the theory). 
>
> The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"? 
>
>
>
>
> > Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality 
>
> Then you cannot belong as object of talk  in your theory, and your   
> theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist,   
> or "highly non computationalist). 
>
>
>
>
> > because it clearly states that the computations of its computational   
> > reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real   
> > processes of nature, whatever they are. 
>
> terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be   
> defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of   
> computation, you should (re)defined that term too. 
>
>
>
> > 
> > Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated   
> > assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow   
> > even if it's doing nothing. 
>
> I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as   
> non sense many times on this list. 
>
> I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All*   
> scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for   
> example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming   
> arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a   
> big discovery. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for   
> > whatsoever. 
>
> It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. 
>
>
>
> > Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that   
> > initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the   
> > assumption itself isn't. 
> > 
> > I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of   
> > scientific method. 
>
>
> I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic   
> assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. 
>
>
>
>
> > Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is   
> > its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed   
> > phenomena. 
>
> It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of   
> explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear   
> inconsistent. 
>
> 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: Tegmark's New Book

Bruno,

Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT 
infinite. The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the 
quantum vacuum. For example, you can't get an infinite number of different 
TYPES of particles out of the quantum vacuum. The set is very restricted to 
those actually possible in the Standard Model...

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:29:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
>
> > William, 
> > 
> > No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same   
> > definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course   
> > theories aren't reality. 
> > 
> > In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can   
> > appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in   
> > my theory to include everything which could become possible. 
>
>
> Just an advise: 
>
> - when working on the fundamentals, avoid terms like "obvious, of   
> course, etc." 
>
> - when working in the interdisciplinary area, avoid terms like "well   
> accepted". 
>
> Note also that if you make a "little" generalization to include all   
> the possible, your assumed reality is no more finite, and this   
> contradicts some of your other posts. It is unclear, as your ontology   
> is unclear. 
>
> 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen 

> Liz,
>
> That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
> time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
> to criticize...
>
>
The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning...
your present time idea is just silly and plain false, when you say
computation in fact it means "kdsnlkfsfnsdklnfdslkn" but not computation,
etc, etc, etc... You're a joke (a bad one).

Quentin



> Anyway thanks for letting us know you don't have any theory of reality
> yourself in spite of your incessant proclamations as to what reality must
> be or is not.
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:39:11 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
>>> essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
>>> consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
>>> by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book).
>>> I made that distinction clear but apparently it didn't register...
>>>
>>> Yes, I know, you're surrounded by idiots. Never mind, one day everyone
>> will tremble before your mighty intellect.
>>
>> In the meantime, you can always practice your maniacal laughter...
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:





On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most  
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.


Okay, thanks.  Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and  
which are the ones derived from those axioms?



1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.
3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the  
actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but  
NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent  
with the actual science (the equations) but not with the  
interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely  
wrong.
4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually  
computes the current state of the universe.
5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a  
physical, material world.
6. These computations produce a real universe state with real  
effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and  
presence of existence, what I call ontological energy.
7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The  
existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all  
other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past  
that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist.  
Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is  
possible because it is the only one that is actual.
8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present  
to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which  
we all exist.


etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which  
come from which you can judge...


If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any  
other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction.  For  
example, in the first one you say "existence must exist because non- 
existence cannot exist". It would seem then that "non-existence  
cannot exist" is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence  
must exist.  Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean  
by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete?



The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of  
the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to  
a formal presentation of the theory as I have.



This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his  
philosophy. His were:


The world is rational.
Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through  
certain techniques).
There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also  
art, etc.).
There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher  
kind.
The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall  
live or have lived.

There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly  
intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).

Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
Formal rights comprise a real science.
Materialism is false.
Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so  
was skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He  
missed the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett.





The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by  
composition.

Concepts have an objective existence.
There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals  
with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most  
highly fruitful for science.

Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.
All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger  
statement: 10 becomes "Weak materialism" is false, for example.


Bruno



Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one  
sounds like Godel's 10th.


Jason


Edgar




On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
Edgard,

You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not  
what you are assuming at the start.  So what are those minimal  
assumptions you took as true at the start which led to your other  
deductions?


Thanks,

Jason


On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in  
considerable detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon'  
I've used is the single neologism 'ontological energy' which I've  
defined clearly.


I can't help it if reality is a difficult subject. What frustrates  
me is not the disagreements which are to be expected but  
disagreements based on misunderstanding of what I've stated quite  
clearly and people thinking I've said the exact opposite. That is  
most certainly not a problem with the explanations b

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:42, LizR wrote:


On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.

This sounds like St Anselm's ontological argument put into a nutshell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument


You are quite quick here. God existence is proved by Gödel by defining  
God by the owner of all "positive" properties, and Gödel formalized  
that in S5.






(I believe it falls down because existence isn't "a property that  
something may or may not have"


OK.




although I'm willing to be corrected on that.)


That was correct.

bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: Tegmark's New Book



On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most  
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.


1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.


So you assume:

0. non-existence cannot exist.

That is too fuzzy for me. The non existence of milk in my fridge seems  
to be a persistent fact.


Also, we have almost invent logic to avoid expression like "existence  
exist". What is existence? existence of what?


I think you could replace 1. with "something exists". In which case I  
can agree.







2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure.


Consistent applies to theories or machines, or person, not to reality.

Reality should be the intended model (in the logician sense) of your  
theory. You should not invoke the reality in your theory. This makes  
you very near inconsistency.


This is really a meta-axiom, you are jet betting on rationalism. If  
that is the case, I can agree.


Not sure what you mean by "logically complete". If it means that  
"reality" satisfies all true propositions, then it is trivial. for  
example the arithmetical truth is defined by the set of all true  
arithmetical propositions. It can be seen as a theory, but not an  
axiomatizable one. I avoid to use "theory" in that sense, as it leads  
often to confusion.







3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the  
actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid,


We can know that a reasoning is valid, but we cannot know that a  
statement is true, in science.





but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be  
consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the  
interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely  
wrong.
4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually  
computes the current state of the universe.


So reality is a program. That is digital physics, and it makes no  
sense. Read the UDA to grasp this.





5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a  
physical, material world.


OK. That is a consequence of computationalism, and with evolving  
defined in arithmetic.
How do you defined evolving? Without physical reality you cannot take  
any physical term for granted.





6. These computations produce a real universe state with real  
effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and  
presence of existence, what I call ontological energy.


That is a God-of-the-gap. You must avoid term like "real", especially  
in axioms.







7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist.


In which sense. Does 17 exists?



The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies  
all other possible realities.


That is either a form of solipsism, or an everything type of TOE.




Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed  
because it is the only one that does exist.


?


Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is  
possible because it is the only one that is actual.


You seem to rely on  abnormal psychic power.




8. Reality exists only in a present moment.


Hmm... at least this explain why you ignore my posts of yesterday,  
which does not exist.




Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the  
present moment in which we all exist.


etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which  
come from which you can judge...


The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of  
the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to  
a formal presentation of the theory as I have.


You are using a lot of words like if their meaning were obvious. You  
lack confrontation with others, but you don't seem to have the  
necessary minimal amount of doubting your own ideas to do that. You  
only advertise an opinion, and adopt an insulting tone when people ask  
questions. This will not help you, (unless you want to create a sect  
or something, in which case unclarity is most welcome).


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: Tegmark's New Book



On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Liz,

Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't  
offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the  
complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they  
are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are  
formalized. Is that fair?


The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware  
of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are  
criticizing me because I don't have one?


What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory  
accurately describes reality or not is a much more important  
criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics  
described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its  
current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted.


Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work  
informally.






Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if  
there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is  
apparently quite tightly formalized


The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. "formalizing" in  
logic, just mean "interviewing some machine", usually in case where  
the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF).





but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to  
indicate it actually applies to reality at all.


Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no  
consistency with actual reality.


Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the  
maker of the theory).


The question should be "do you see an inconsistency"?





Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality


Then you cannot belong as object of talk  in your theory, and your  
theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist,  
or "highly non computationalist).





because it clearly states that the computations of its computational  
reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real  
processes of nature, whatever they are.


terms like "necessay", "actually" "real" "processes", "nature" must be  
defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of  
computation, you should (re)defined that term too.






Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated  
assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow  
even if it's doing nothing.


I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as  
non sense many times on this list.


I assume only that "17 is prime" is independent of me and you. *All*  
scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for  
example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming  
arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a  
big discovery.








A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for  
whatsoever.


It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it.



Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that  
initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the  
assumption itself isn't.


I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of  
scientific method.



I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic  
assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one.





Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is  
its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed  
phenomena.


It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of  
explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear  
inconsistent.


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: Tegmark's New Book



On 13 Jan 2014, at 23:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

William,

No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same  
definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course  
theories aren't reality.


In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can  
appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little  
in my theory to include everything which could become possible.


So is that just the things that can be made out of the particles  
that appear?  Everything nomologically possible?  Or everything  
mathematically possible, i.e. all consistent axiomatic systems.  Or  
all worlds that have consistent descriptions, i.e. aren't self- 
contradictory?


"Possible" is ambiguous.


That is why modal logic exists. But some philosophers, like Quine, was  
extremely opposed to modal logic. he believed that possible p =  
necessary = p = "verum(p)".


And, ... I agree with him, except that "provability" is a 100% quinean  
mathematical notion, and yet it defines a (pretty) bunch of modal  
logics (G and G*, and the unavoidable intensional variants).


So Quine anti-modal stance can be said refuted by incompleteness.

Some point that he made remains interesting an d even correct for "too  
much rich" Löbian machine.
For example you can extend formally the G and G* logic in their  
quantified extension (which I note qG and qG*), but this makes precise  
sense only for arithmetical-like  theories. A Löbian being like ZF  
does not admit those quantified extensions, and the technical reason  
for that are precise form of Quine attacks against modal logic.
This provides an argument against set theoretical realism, actually,  
and is the reason why I don't really believe we can use set theory in  
an ontology of a TOE. It is already too much big. of course Tegmark  
naive stance on math (his MUH) is even logically stronger and  
basically does not make sense at all.
Tegmark is in good company, as *all* attempt to formalize *all* math,  
done last century, have failed up to now. They have all be shown  
inconsistent.


Bruno





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.


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: Tegmark's New Book



On 13 Jan 2014, at 22:27, LizR wrote:


On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Bruno,

No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't  
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time  
which is NON-dimensional.

Sorry, but I don't understand.

To discuss on this, I need to know what you assume, and what you  
derive.


Edgar thinks that people not understanding his theory is their  
fault. He hasn't worked out that the simple fact if he can't  
communicate it properly, that is his problem. He probably never will.


He seems to suffer from an absence of confrontation with others.





To be honest I think we're wasting our time discussing it further.  
He has not, will not and almost certainly cannot provide any formal  
assumptions or derivations.


Or even informal one. He might learn, if his goal is to learn. But  
that's not to much apparent.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.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: A Theory of Consciousness



On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/13/2014 7:17 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:



On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:17:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
As you've explained it above your theory makes a rock just as  
conscious as a brain.  I'm
sure you must have a more subtle theory than that, so I'll ask you  
the same thing I asked
Bruno, if I make a robot what do I have to do make it conscious or  
not conscious?


Brent

Did you receive any interesting answers?


Hm, should I take that as a negative answer, or merely as a skipped  
question?


I didn't get any answer from Mr. Owen.  Bruno's answer is that the  
robot has to be Lobian, i.e. can do proofs by transfinite induction.


Normal induction is enough.

You can even limit induction on the decidable (sigma_0) formula, but  
then you have to add the exponential axioms:


x^0 = 1
x^s(y) = x *(x^y)

Those exponential axioms are not provable from addition and  
multiplication without induction on at least all semi-decidable (RE,  
sigma_1) formula.








I have adequate background in neuroscience but I'm mostly ignorant  
of AI math, robotics work, and  philosophy of  
mind, so excuse my rampant speculation.  This is what I'd try in  
design of a robotic brain to switch on and off consciousness and  
test for its presence:  First, I'd give the robot brain modules to  
interpret its sensory inputs in an associative manner analogous to  
human sensory associative regions.  All these sensory inputs would  
feed into the decision-making module (DMM).  One of the first  
steps taken by the DMM is determining how important each sensory  
signal is for its current objectives.  It decides to pay attention  
to a subset of those signals.

So is it conscious of those signals?  How does it decide?

1: As described in the next two sentences of the original  
paragraph, no.
2: The choice of function used to select the subset is unimportant  
to the experiment, but if we were aiming for biomimicry then each  
sensory module would report a degree of stimulation, and attention  
function would block all signals but the most stimulated 1 to 7.
Second, I'd put a switch on another input to make it part of the  
attention subset or not:
What other input would you put a switch on?  What inputs are there  
besides sensory?  I think you've assumed "conscious" = "self  
aware".  Is one conscious when one is "lost in thought"?


1: The switch would go on the signals described in the second half  
of the sentence that you hastily cut in half. :D
2: Inputs besides sensory associations are important to a  
functioning robot but not, I predict, to a robot designed only to  
test for consciousness.
3: I chose to address the specific matter of qualia rather than all  
of what people mean by "conscious", as described in the "I predict  
this because..." sentence of the original paragraph. :D
4: I suspect that the human experience of being lost in thought  
differs between specific cases.  Most times for me that I'd call  
"lost in thought" I can still operate (drive, walk, eat) on "auto- 
pilot" which undoubtedly requires my senses to be engaged, but  
afterwards the only things I can recall experiencing are the  
thoughts I was lost in.  Introspective evidence and memory being as  
bad as they are, that shouldn't be taken as a necessarily correct  
description.  But if it is a correct description, then by my  
definitions in the original paragraph, I'd say that I was  
conscious.  But if what you mean by "conscious" includes awareness  
of surroundings, then no, I was not conscious under that definition.


Yes, it seems there are different levels and kinds of consciousness:  
perception of the external world, perception of one's body, modeling  
one's place in the external world, being aware of one's thoughts  
(although I think this is over rated), feelings of empathy,...



the attention's choice of signals would also an input to the DMM,  
and I could turn on or off whether that attentional choice was  
itself let pass through to the next processing stages.  I would  
predict that, with the switch turned off, the robot would be not  
conscious (i.e. it would have no experience of qualia), but that  
with the switch turned on, the robot would be conscious (i.e. it  
would experience qualia corresponding to the signals it is paying  
attention to).  I predict this because it seems to me that the  
experience of qualia can be described as being simultaneously  
aware of a sensory datum and (recursively) aware of being aware of  
it.  If the robot AI was sufficiently advanced that we  
could  program it to talk about its experiences,  
the test of my prediction would be that, with the switch off, the  
robot would talk about what it sees and hears, and that with the  
switch on, the robot would also talk about fact that it knew it  
was seeing a

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 13 Jan 2014, at 21:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Hi,

Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno:


"... from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and  
will follow the path with the greater measure. "





This looks like some form of a self-selection!?


OK. Like in the WM-duplication.




It essence, any observer having a 1p means that it will always exist  
in the center of maximum likelihood for its existence.


It is continued by the most probable computations going through its  
local current state. "current" is defined with the Dx = "xx" method,  
like all indexicals in the comp theory.





Am I missing something here?


I don't think so.

Bruno






On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 13 Jan 2014, at 17:53, Terren Suydam wrote:


Hi Bruno,


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 11 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to  
follow you here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one  
of these days but unfortunately I barely have enough time these  
days to read this list.


OK. Good book are Mendelson, Boolos and Jeffrey (and Burgess), etc.  
Unfortunately they asks for a lot ow work. Logic is the less known  
branch of math. The beginning *seems* easy, but is not (unlike  
computability theiory).



Thanks.


However one thing still nags me. I don't find it hard to imagine  
that given enough computational power, we could simulate a universe  
with alternative physics, that leads within the simulation to  
intelligent, conscious life forms, eventually.


The simulated agent will be conscious in the 3-1 sense, but we will  
have to "manipulate them infinitely" to fail them. Indeed they can  
read and think like us, do the UD-Argument, and find the comp- 
physics, and compare it with their artificial physics, and their  
choice will be that either they are indeed in a normal simulation,  
or that comp is false. But we will have ourself an infinite task to  
fail them. If not they will soon or later find the discrepancies.



I don't see why... see below.



OK






So Glak appears in our simulation. And if we can simulate it, well,  
it's already in the UD*, as well as the infinite computations going  
through Glak's state.


Bur from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and  
will follow the path with the greater measure.
They will not "stay" in the simulation. That will happen only in  
our 3-1 view (or 1-3-1 views).




The only way I can resolve this with your reply is that I fear you  
have to say conscious beings cannot exist in alternative physics  
simulations, but I'd love to be wrong here.


They can, from our points of view, but they will find themselves in  
the most common computations in the UD* which pass through their  
states.
Those people stays in the simulation, only from our points of view,  
and this asks infinite word from our part if we want them to stay  
failed by our simulation. Their situation is similar with the  
stochastically rare witness of a quantum suicide surviver. He  
survived with probability 1, from their own view, but with  
probability near 0 for their witness (in iterated quantum suicides).



If we are able to simulate a universe with alternate physics


I can make sense of that.



that gives rise to Glak (and there may be an infinity of different  
such universes),


This means that your simulation of the alternate physics emulates  
Glak at the right level, or below.


But Glak, from his "real" perspective belongs to *all* computations  
in the UD* going through his state.


That is the real physics! And you cannot simulate it, a priori, as  
it is given by an infinite sum on all computations.





then that simulation exists in the UD*.


That one, yes, but also all this others. And Glak's physics is  
determined, below its own level, by all the simulations, not just  
the one you do.





And of course, the UD* also contains an infinity of continuations  
simulating that alternative physics,

and of course Glak.



By the first person consciousness invariance, Glak, from his  
perspective, is confronted with the "real physics" below its subst  
level. It is the same for all machines, unless someone fail them in  
normal worlds (like us here). So, if the law of alternate physics  
are different from the laws of the comp-physics, Glak will see that.  
He might conclude that comp is false, or that he belongs to a normal  
reality simulating an alternate physics.




 So it's not clear to me that the measure of that alternative  
physics would be so small as to make it obvious that the  
alternative physics would be a "white rabbit world".



In this case, it is not a white rabbit world. Like in a video game,  
you can decide to avoid white rabbits, and to have reasonable  
alternate physical laws.


So Glak can be conscious in the alternative physics, but unless you  
intervene to

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


William,

No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same  
definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course  
theories aren't reality.


In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can  
appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in  
my theory to include everything which could become possible.



Just an advise:

- when working on the fundamentals, avoid terms like "obvious, of  
course, etc."


- when working in the interdisciplinary area, avoid terms like "well  
accepted".


Note also that if you make a "little" generalization to include all  
the possible, your assumed reality is no more finite, and this  
contradicts some of your other posts. It is unclear, as your ontology  
is unclear.


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: Tegmark's New Book



On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:47, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Stephen,

PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of  
'Realization' deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with  
serious insights on how to directly experience reality as it  
actually is such as:


1. The fundamental experience of our existence, our consciousness  
within a present moment through which clock time flows and events  
happen, is the direct experience of the continuing extension of the  
radial P-time dimension of our 4-dimensional hyperspherical  
universe. Our fundamental personal experience is our direct  
experience of the fundamental cosmological process.


2. It is possible to directly experience that everything is its  
information only. With understanding it becomes quite clear and  
directly observable that for anything to be observed and experienced  
it simply must consist of information. If it did not consist of  
information it would not be observable. What we mistake for material  
things in a physical universe are simply associations of different  
kinds of pure information. For example what we normally think of as  
material stone is actually an association of colors, feelings of  
texture, resistance to motion, temperature etc. all of which are  
actually just different types of information.


So it is very very clear that everything is its information only,  
and that this can be directly experienced. In fact we all directly  
experience this all the time already, we just don't realize that we  
do.


Things have no 'self-substances'. They are all pure information  
whose only 'substance' is OE. This is a modern statement of the  
ancient Vedic insight that 'all forms are empty'.


3. In my treatment of 'Realization' I also suggest that IF anyone  
needs a God then the only rational definition is the universe itself


That is Aristotelian theology.





because then there is no doubt as to God's existence,


The UDA put some doubt an the ontological "existence" of the physical  
universe (but not on the physical appearances, or on its  
epistemological existence).






and his attributes then become a matter of scientific inquiry.


So Stephen, as you can see, my book is hardly the 'New Age' nonsense  
your knee jerk reaction imagined...


It seems to me to be like an Aristotelian finitist theology. No  
problem, but your reality has to be non Turing emulable, to avoid the  
consequence of comp. In fact it needs to be not only non Turing  
emulable, but also non FPI recoverable (FPI = first person  
indeterminacy, see UDA step 3 for the detail).


I am just trying to make sense of what you say.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark's New Book



On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe  
where addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old.


So you assume the usual physical universe? Your "comp space" (which I  
have still no clue at all of it consists) is born 13,7 billion years  
ago?





Not quite old enough to get to infinity! This applies all the types  
of infinity you mention.


Comp does not need actual infinities, but it still needs the potential  
infinity of all finite things (integers, or something).


But finitist physicalism is indeed a way out of comp. But then your  
theory is non-computationalist. Do you say "no" to the doctor. You  
have already answer "no", and later "yes", so I am not sure. Which is  
it?






The universe (extended quantum vacuum)


So you assume quantum mechanics?



has always existed but there was no clock time so there is no  
measure of the duration of its existence so it has not existed  
forever nor is it infinitely old. These are human concepts which do  
not apply. Time was not 'flowing' prior to the big bang.


So you assume the big bang theory?




I was trying to keep things simple but it is certainly possible to  
have big bounces. I posted a possible theory on that and entropy and  
gravitational reversal a couple of days ago in detail. Did you see  
that? I certainly don't rule out a bouncing universe.


The computational universe is created by an actualization event in  
the generalized quantum vacuum. Perhaps a bounce, perhaps something  
else.


Why would we need that?
To define computation, you need at least the little arithmetical  
"platonia", but then you have already a computational space (as  
arithmetic *is* a computational space, and is bigger than it).







A good analogy is a perfectly still ocean of water. It is originally  
formless but forms can arise within it. The nature of the water is  
what determines what forms can arise within that ocean. Likewise OE  
(the generalized quantum vacuum) was originally formless but its  
intrinsic nature determines what information forms can actualize and  
arise and exist within it.


The quantum vacuum does that. No need to generalize it. Now, you  
theory looks like just QM.




In the original formless ocean nothing happens so there can be no  
observations therefore it is impossible to even confirm its  
existence. However once things start happening it becomes observable  
and one can measure it and confirm its existence.


Things must be observable to properly be considered real and actual...


So your original formless ocean is not real?

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: Consciousness as a State of Matter