Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:44, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an idea of a mind. This contradicts your admission, if I remember correctly, that 23 is prime is true or false independently of us. 2+2=4 is infinitely conceptually simpler than anything involving a mind, which is what we want to explain. I think that you confuse just numbers, and human's idea of number, which indeed are an idea of the human mind. If not, comp does not make sense at the start, and your critics is on the step zero. Even if such a mind is degenerate in that it cannot be ever complete, All machine's (even in weaker sense that the comp sense) can ever be complete. Only complex non computable sets can be semantically 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. It is far easier to explain becoming, in the indexical way, from some being than making becoming primitive. If becoming and mind are primitive, you are back to dualism or a form of idealism. 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, No. the mind that is contained in the relation of the number with its (probable) universal neighboring numbers. thus it is only neutral when both it and its infinite physical implementations vanish into the Void. Only the Void is neutral. Only in your quite idiosyncratic way, sorry. And void needs to assume some notion of things that you must make precise so that we know what the void is empty of. Bruno On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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. 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
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:53, 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'. All those terms can be defined from comp, + and *. See the papers in my URL. (or ask). Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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 edga...@att.net 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. 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 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, Then it is circular. 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. That is not intelligible. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Assuming that there is a universe. But then you do not explain why there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is something exists. 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. That is digital physics, which is refuted. Thus of course consistency applies to it. That does not follow. Machines can be 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 14 Jan 2014, at 20:21, 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? :-) Yes. Each time I admit publicly that in my heart I know that I am awake, I wake up! :-) 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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. Assuming that Edgar is rational. That does not seem clear to me. Bruno 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. 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
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com 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. Ah ... Me too :) Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ... 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
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). OK? 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 21:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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. Assuming that Edgar is rational. That does not seem clear to me. Nor to me. My own pet theory is that Edgar is an AI programme being tested out on the Everything List by a professor of cognitive science. This would explain a lot of things, for example his habit of not answering questions, or when he does of answering them in a manner that shows he doesn't understand them, or of giving out one of a series of canned responses (I've already explained that Read my book That's obvious etc). Also, some his answers are barely parsable as English, which would make more sense if they are being constructed by a computer programme in response to a few key words. And his behavioural characteristics - arrogance, lack of humour except at the expense of others, overbearing ego, etc - are all features that would be easier to programme than a more rounded personality. I think we're experiencing a Turing test. (Maybe I have to say You're a programme written by a psychology class, and I claim my $5!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Jan 2014, at 02:37, 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. 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, False, there are plenty evidences that we live in the canonical simulation (which does not depend on the ontology). All verified quantum propositional propositions provides such evidence. It explains the quantum aspect of the physical reality. You are *assuming* it. 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. If we assume comp, we don't even need evidences, except for *testing* comp. And up to now, all evidence are that we are in a simulation, even in *the* emulation (not done by our descendants, but by the bottom ontology of the comp theory (which is given by any universal number, like Robinson arithmetic for example). Then by the dream argument (or UDA step 6), there are no evidences, nor can there be possibly anyone, that we are not in a simulation, also. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. 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
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. I'm not sure I understand. Suppose the simulation has the same physics as the (allegedly) real world? Or are you saying that isn't possible? On the subject of interventions, if the Bible is to be believed (and I have it on good authority that it should :) then we are definitely living in a simulation, because there were a lot of interventions - or at least tweaks to the software! - a few thousand years ago. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say. How would one experience this - how would I know that I am in a finite simulation, if it happens to be large enough (maybe it simulates the Hubble sphere?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com 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. Ah ... Me too :) Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ... OK! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first place. The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the measure problem on all simulations is to abandon computationalism, with computation in the standard sense (not yours that you have not defined, as you add a fuzzy reification to it, through your 1p universal present time (which makes no sense, as we have pinted out). Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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. 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
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, 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! :-) You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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 edga...@att.net 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Singularity Institute Blog
On 15 Jan 2014, at 05:33, meekerdb wrote: 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 nano machines,” 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 nano machines, 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. There is no way to guaranty their friendliness. But I think there is a way to make much lower the probability of their possible unfriendliness: just be polite and respectful with them. This can work on humans and animals too ... Build-in friendly-instincts, like Asimov, suggested, can work for a limited period, but in the long run, the machines will not appreciate and that might accelerate the unfriendliness. With comp (and Theaetetus), love and all virtues are arguably NOT programmable. But it is educable, by example and practice, with humans and machines. Bruno Brent Original Message 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 extremely hard to write down a
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, 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! :-) You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile. It's a technique of the bully. Make fun of someone, then ask them why they aren't laughing. However I *was* smiling, actually, after reading that, because Edgar's heavy-handed attempt at retaliatory humour, together with the way he clearly doesn't understand what satire is, were in fact laughable. (But I didn't laugh too much, because I was at work at the time :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 21:39, LizR wrote: On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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? No, but I understand what you mean by that. So I was agreeing with your remark on Edgar's post. How much more formal can you get than defining space and time and mass and force then relating them all with ? By given explicitly the alphabet, the grammar, the axioms, and the rule of inference. Nobody does that, except when we programmed a computer or build a machine. The relation above is an informal description of a relation between measurable quantities. It is not a formal theory in the sense of the logicians. Nobody work in formal theories, except quite exceptionally Russell and Whitehead, in Principia Mathematica. Gödel did not have to read it at all, to refute their project of formalization of the whole of math (Hilbert's nightmare). Logicians does not work in formal theories (unless you look at them at the comp substitution level assuming they are machines: that would be formal, but of course that is out of the question). Logicians formalize theories, to reason *on* them, not *in* them. But their proofs on the formal systems are done informally, like all proofs in math. I'm guessing you mean something different by a formal theory to what I would understand by that phrase. I am aware that only professional logicians make that difference, which is indeed crucial for the logical matter. 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. Sure, me too. Do you understand the nuance I brought? That is crucial to just understand what the field of mathematical logic is all about. It simple: to be formal = to build a machine (virtual or real) which can answer the questions. To formalize newton, you will need to give the alphabet (the symbols you allow). This will include the logical connectors, for example, and the = symbol, and the quantifiers. You will need a grammar telling you which formula are well-formed. Then you have to give all the axiom you need, like the one I gave for propositional calculus ( like (A-(B-A)), (A-(B-C)) - ((A- B) - (A-C)) etc. (you remember? I asked to prove (A-A) from them, on the FOAR list, I think). You will need to give the math axioms, presented in that way. The inference rules (without which you can just do nothing with the axioms). Like the rule that you can derive B from A-B and A. Etc. There is no formal proofs in the literature, except in figures, to illustrate what the meta-mathematicians (mathematical logicians) works on. Now, you can consider the RNA transcription from DNA, and the synthesis of a protein as a formal thing, and in that sense, the basic reality is quite formal. But science is and will ever be informal, even logic. Gödel's incompleteness proof is informal, but it applies *on* the existence or non existence of formal proofs in formal theories. Now, all mathematicians are comforted by their (usually correct) beliefs that their proofs could easily been formalized in ZF, but they never do that, for good reason. Formal proofs are long, tedious to read, non intelligible and full of bugs, like programs and machines. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Singularity Institute Blog
Fortunately it isn't clear that nanomachines that can destroy the Earth are possible, at least not as envisoned by Drexler etc (the grey goo scenario). Clearly nanomachines (in the form of viruses) could wipe out humanity, but nanomachines able to disassemble all living creatures are less likely, in my opinion. I suppose something that could take DNA apart might do it, but it would have a hard job getting inside every living organism on the planet. On 15 January 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 05:33, meekerdb wrote: 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 nano machines,” 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 nano machines, 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. There is no way to guaranty their friendliness. But I think there is a way to make much lower the probability of their possible unfriendliness: just be polite and respectful with them. This can work on humans and animals too ... Build-in friendly-instincts, like Asimov, suggested, can work for a limited period, but in the long run, the machines will not appreciate and that might accelerate the unfriendliness. With comp (and Theaetetus), love and all virtues are arguably NOT programmable. But it is educable, by example and practice, with humans and machines. Bruno Brent Original Message The Singularity Institute Blog http://intelligence.org -- MIRI strategy conversation with Steinhardt, Karnofsky, and Amodeihttp://intelligence.org/2014/01/13/miri-strategy-conversation-with-steinhardt-karnofsky-and-amodei/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=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 http://yudkowsky.net/ (research fellow at MIRI) - Luke Muehlhauser http://lukeprog.com/ (executive director at MIRI) - Holden Karnofsky (co-CEO at GiveWell http://www.givewell.org/) - Jacob Steinhardt http://cs.stanford.edu/%7Ejsteinhardt/ (grad student in computer science at Stanford) - Dario Amodei http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/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 herehttp://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/10-27-2013-conversation-about-MIRI-strategy.doc . 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”:
Re: Tegmark's New Book
OK, I see what you mean. (And you're right, it was on FOAR that you set me various exercises.) So maybe I asked for the wrong thing from Edgar. I don't suppose I will get anything remotely like the *Principia* no matter how many times I ask, but out of interest, what *should* I be asking him for? I'm sure there is something that is more formal than just a lot of hand waving and nonsensical-seeming verbiage, while not being formal in the sense used by logicians. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote: 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? Logically, yes. But you need hyper-determinism, that is you need to select very special boundary conditions, which makes Cramer's transaction theory close to Bohm's theory. Those are still many-world theories, + some ugly selection principle to get one branch. It is very not natural, as you have quasi microsuperposition (appearance of many branches), but the macro-one are eliminated by ad hoc boundary conditions, which will differ depending on where you will decide to introduce the Heisenberg cut. Also, QM will prevent us to know or measure those boundary conditions, which makes them into (local, perhaps, in *some* sense) hidden variable theory. Many worlds is far less ad-hoc, imo. There is no Heisenberg cut, and the boundary conditions does not play any special role, and indeed they are all realized in the universal wave (and in arithmetic). Bruno On 15 January 2014 10:01, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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,
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote: 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? Logically, yes. But you need hyper-determinism, that is you need to select very special boundary conditions, which makes Cramer's transaction theory close to Bohm's theory. I'm not sure what you mean by special boundary conditions. The bcs in an Aspect type experiment are the device which creates the photons, and the settings of the measuring apparatuses. These are special but only in that the photons are entangled ... note that this isn't Cramer's or Bohm's theory (the transaction theory requires far more complexity that this). Those are still many-world theories, + some ugly selection principle to get one branch. It is very not natural, as you have quasi microsuperposition (appearance of many branches), but the macro-one are eliminated by ad hoc boundary conditions, which will differ depending on where you will decide to introduce the Heisenberg cut. Also, QM will prevent us to know or measure those boundary conditions, which makes them into (local, perhaps, in *some* sense) hidden variable theory. I don't understand the above. The theory is simply QM with no collapse and with no preferred time direction (it assumes any system which violates Bell's inequality has to operate below the level where decoherence brings in the effects of the entropy gradient). It is both local and realistic, since time symmetry is Bell's 4th assumption - it allows EPR experiments to be local and realistic (I am relying on John Bell for this information, I wouldn't be able to work it out myself). So it definitely is a hidden variable theory. I think for it to work the system is kept from undergoing decoherence or any interaction that would lead to MWI branching. EPR experiments only appear to work for systems that are shielded from such effects, I think? So there isn't a problem with the MWI - the whole thing takes place in one branch, with no quantum interfence etc being relevant. (I believe that EPR experiments lose their ability to violate Bell's inequality once interactions occur that could cause MWI branching within the system under consideration???) Many worlds is far less ad-hoc, imo. There is no Heisenberg cut, and the boundary conditions does not play any special role, and indeed they are all realized in the universal wave (and in arithmetic). Please explain about the Heisenberg cut. I've heard the term, but don't know how it relates to EPR experiments. Have you read Huw Price's book Time's arrow and Archimedes' Point ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Jan 2014, at 09:44, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. I'm not sure I understand. Suppose the simulation has the same physics as the (allegedly) real world? Or are you saying that isn't possible? Yes, it is not possible. The simulation is the product of finite program. The real physics is brought by the 1p-indeterminacy applied to an infinity of programs, which are all the universal machines which makes a computation (or more than one) leading to your current state. This astonish many people, because they feel that this contradict the dream argument. But the dream argument only shows that you cannot know that you are awake. It does not show that you cannot know that you are dreaming. Same with the simulation. To fail a machine on this needs an infinite work. On the subject of interventions, if the Bible is to be believed (and I have it on good authority that it should :) then we are definitely living in a simulation, because there were a lot of interventions - or at least tweaks to the software! - a few thousand years ago. IF the bible needs to be believed, which I (and you) are doubting, I hope. No need of the bible, though, QM, is, for a computationalist a strong evidence that we are in the bottom simulation, made by the TOE ontology. Everett, in particular confirms this and the first person plural nature of physics. That is why I dare to explain the consequence of comp: physicists have already found the most starling one (the MW). The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say. Yes, and Terren. How would one experience this - how would I know that I am in a finite simulation, if it happens to be large enough (maybe it simulates the Hubble sphere?) In Simulacron III, by Daniel Galouye, the guy discovers that he is in a simulation due to some bug in it, and then by being unable to quit the city (as the simulation simulates only one city!). But such discoveries are not done by only the first person experience (if that was the case, the dream argument, and step 6, would be invalid). It is discovered by some work, which basically consists in testing the comp-physics, which is not entirely simulable. For example: if you test the random nature of spin, and discover that it is a pseudo-random, you know that you are not in the comp reality, (assuming comp = QM exactly), but in a higher level simulation. Bruno -- You received this
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first place. The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the measure problem on all simulations is to abandon computationalism, ... or to derive physics from comp, which consists in making physics into a self-referential modality (and that works!). [I forgot to finish the sentence, sorry]. with computation in the standard sense (not yours that you have not defined, as you add a fuzzy reification to it, through your 1p universal present time (which makes no sense, as we have pinted out). Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, 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! :-) You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile. It's a technique of the bully. Make fun of someone, then ask them why they aren't laughing. I agree, it is a bullying technic. But in the case of Edgar, I don't think he is purposefully bullying. He just seem unaware of what it means to confront his ideas with others. However I was smiling, actually, after reading that, because Edgar's heavy-handed attempt at retaliatory humour, together with the way he clearly doesn't understand what satire is, were in fact laughable. (But I didn't laugh too much, because I was at work at the time :) Yeah, ... but it is also a bit sad. 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: Why our fine tuning and not some other?
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, That is the explanation It's not, because you force us to assume the very thing you are trying to explain. Telmo. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:45, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com 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. Ah ... Me too :) Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ... OK! OK, nice. It will be a new thread. Be ready :) 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Freq, So now you are on my case because my previous girlfriend died of cancer a few years back?! Edgar 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 edga...@att.net javascript:. 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: What are wavefunctions?
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote: 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? Logically, yes. But you need hyper-determinism, that is you need to select very special boundary conditions, which makes Cramer's transaction theory close to Bohm's theory. I'm not sure what you mean by special boundary conditions. The bcs in an Aspect type experiment are the device which creates the photons, and the settings of the measuring apparatuses. The setting of the analyser must be predetermined. And not in the mechanist sense, where the choice of the analyser is still made by you, even if deterministically so. With only one branch, you are not just using irreversibility, but you are using the boundary condition selecting a branch among all in the universal wave. These are special but only in that the photons are entangled ... note that this isn't Cramer's or Bohm's theory (the transaction theory requires far more complexity that this). Those are still many-world theories, + some ugly selection principle to get one branch. It is very not natural, as you have quasi microsuperposition (appearance of many branches), but the macro-one are eliminated by ad hoc boundary conditions, which will differ depending on where you will decide to introduce the Heisenberg cut. Also, QM will prevent us to know or measure those boundary conditions, which makes them into (local, perhaps, in *some* sense) hidden variable theory. I don't understand the above. The theory is simply QM with no collapse and with no preferred time direction (it assumes any system which violates Bell's inequality has to operate below the level where decoherence brings in the effects of the entropy gradient). It is both local and realistic, since time symmetry is Bell's 4th assumption - it allows EPR experiments to be local and realistic (I am relying on John Bell for this information, I wouldn't be able to work it out myself). So it definitely is a hidden variable theory. Yes, and I am willing to accept it is local. but it is hyper- determined. It means that if I chose the setting of the two analyser in the Aspect experience by looking at my horoscope, that horoscope was determined by the whole future of the phsyical universe. Logically possible, you are right, but ugly, as it is a selection principle based on boundary conditions. It is more local than Bohm, and it does not need a new potential, but it is sill using abnormal special data for the TOE. It is no more a nice and gentle equation like the SWE, but that same equation together with tuns of mega-terra-gigabyte of data. I think for it to work the system is kept from undergoing decoherence or any interaction that would lead to MWI branching. EPR experiments only appear to work for systems that are shielded from such effects, I think? So there isn't a problem with the MWI - the whole thing takes place in one branch, with no quantum interfence etc being relevant. (I believe that EPR experiments lose their ability to violate Bell's inequality once interactions occur that could cause MWI branching within the system under consideration???) ? Many worlds is far less ad-hoc, imo. There is no Heisenberg cut, and the boundary conditions does not play any special role, and indeed they are all realized in the universal wave (and in arithmetic). Please explain about the Heisenberg cut. I've heard the term, but don't know how it relates to EPR experiments. The Heinsenberg cut is where the wave should collapse in the Copenhagen QM. Von Neumann understood well that it is largely arbitrary. In all one world theory, you have to justify why the superposition works so well for the micro-worlds, and disappear for the macro- world. Using reversiblity, cannot by itself solve that problem. What works is reversibility and the boundaries conditions. God needs to know all the detail of the big crunch to program convenably the big bang, so as making an Aspect result consistent with one-world, locality and determinacy. Have you read Huw Price's book Time's arrow and Archimedes' Point ? No. I know it, as it is often discussed on forums. I am not convinced, as I tend to not believe in any primitive time and space, at least when I tend to believe in comp (of course I *know* nothing). QM is indeed reversible (in large part), but using this to select one branch by boundary condition, is still like a form of cosmic solipsism to me. We can't refute it, and unlike most QM collapse theories, we
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com 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... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt 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: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer program. It's always able to compute its next computation. Same with the 'program' that computes reality. It is always able to compute the next state of the universe. If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a universe but there is. Therefore Godel does NOT apply to the running program of reality just as it does NOT apply to all the computer programs running all over the world right now. Therefore the actual logico-mathematical system that continually computes reality MUST BE logically self-consistent and logically complete. It's a very simple insight... I explained the difference in my previous post but you ignored that. Reality math does not just write down some statement and then try to reach it computationally. That would be teleology and Godel might apply but reality doesn't do that, it just always computes the next state from the current state which it can ALWAYS do. Do you believe in teleology? If you think Godel applies to the computations of reality math you are arguing for teleology Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:48:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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 edga...@att.net 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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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, Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful. The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'. So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental axiom. What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, Then it is circular. 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. That is not intelligible. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Assuming that there is a universe. But then you do not explain why there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is something exists. 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. That is digital physics, which is refuted. Thus of course consistency applies to it. That does not follow. Machines can be 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Telmo, Thanks Telmo! Freq's comment was especially painful as my previous lady companion died of cancer a few years ago which is why I was looking again. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:17:44 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: 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 edga...@att.net javascript:. And you said i didn't read things... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer program. Run by which computer? Arithmetic or some physical reality? running computer program is ambiguous. It's always able to compute its next computation. It is the universal machine which run the programs which do that. Not the program itself. Same with the 'program' that computes reality. But which reality run that program? It is always able to compute the next state of the universe. No program can compute its next state (I prove this in my long (french) text). Amazingly, a program can compute and output a program computing its next state, but it cannot run it, without changing its next state as computed by the program given as output. If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a universe but there is. I know you find this obvious. But I think it might be false. Even contradictory. I have given reason for this in a preceding post to you. But you need to study the UDA to get it well. Therefore Godel does NOT apply to the running program of reality just as it does NOT apply to all the computer programs running all over the world right now. Gödel's theorem applies to all programs and all effective theories. Therefore the actual logico-mathematical system that continually computes reality MUST BE logically self-consistent and logically complete. computes reality has no meaning, unless you make this much more precise. You talk like if the word reality has a simple interpretation, but that is not true. It's a very simple insight... You might have an insight, but you did not succeed in communicating it to me. I explained the difference in my previous post but you ignored that. Reality math I have already asked you to explain what you mean by that. Neither math nor reality can be used as a primitive terms, on which we can find simple axioms to agree on. does not just write down some statement and then try to reach it computationally. That would be teleology and Godel might apply but reality doesn't do that, it just always computes the next state from the current state which it can ALWAYS do. Sorry but this is not understandable. No meaning, or too much meaning. Do you believe in teleology? If you think Godel applies to the computations of reality math you are arguing for teleology Define reality math, or explain. Otr just use your theory to see if it agrees with UDA, or part of it. UDA is specially build so that you don't need any knowledge to grasp it, except for a passive understanding of how a computer works. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:48:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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 edga...@att.net 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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. I use only the fact that the arithmetical proposition is true of false. It is the belief that 1+1=3 is false or true, independently of me, or of the working of my brain, or from the working of some possible physical universe. You use that implicitly when you refer to the quantum vacuum. There is no science without it (pace H. Field) You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. ? I do. UDA explains (only) why we have no choice in that matter (once we bet that the brain is Turing emulable), and AUDA makes the math verification, and proposes the experimental devices to test the propositional physics already derived (including both quanta and qualia (accepting some definition). PGC said that you should read a text, before criticizing it. I think that it is a wise remark, if not obvious. When you study a theory by another, you should better forget your own, momentarily. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, I agree that its sounds like nonsense, but the earth is not flat sounded also like nonsense, radio waves sounded like nonsense. you cannot speculate on a possible contradiction to refute a theory, you must show the contradiction. which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas Show one, without invoking obviousness, or equivalent. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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-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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful. Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful. The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all. but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'. self-necessitating contains two hot complex notions: self and necessitate. We want to explain the complex from the simple, not the other way round. So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental axiom. If that was true, you would not need to say so. What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me You should also never put statements in the mouth of others, especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would have said that arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists. I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where the assumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanist assumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survive with an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is not excluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at some level, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, it is implied by your computational stance. So my assumption, at that level, is a tiny part of your assumption. By reasoning at that meta-level (UDA), we get as meta-theorem that the TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementary axioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + the axioms, where you can read s(x) by the successor of the number x. 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is in that theory that we define the observers and derive physics (and more). That's AUDA, or the machine's interview (in the sane2004 paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical and experimentally testable. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, Then it is circular. 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. That is not intelligible. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Assuming that there is a universe. But then you do not explain why there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is something exists. 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. That is digital physics, which is refuted. Thus of course consistency applies to it. That does not follow. Machines can be 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. 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, If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms of your UDA then where do those come from? Unless you can answer that question you have a gap in your theory that mine doesn't have. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful. Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful. The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all. but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'. self-necessitating contains two hot complex notions: self and necessitate. We want to explain the complex from the simple, not the other way round. So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental axiom. If that was true, you would not need to say so. What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me You should also never put statements in the mouth of others, especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would have said that arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists. I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where the assumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanist assumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survive with an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is not excluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at some level, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, it is implied by your computational stance. So my assumption, at that level, is a tiny part of your assumption. By reasoning at that meta-level (UDA), we get as meta-theorem that the TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementary axioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + the axioms, where you can read s(x) by the successor of the number x. 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is in that theory that we define the observers and derive physics (and more). That's AUDA, or the machine's interview (in the sane2004 paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical and experimentally testable. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, Then it is circular. 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. That is not intelligible. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Assuming that there is a universe. But then you do not explain why there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is something exists. 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. That is digital physics, which is refuted. Thus of course consistency applies to it. That does not follow. Machines can be 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 15 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote: OK, I see what you mean. (And you're right, it was on FOAR that you set me various exercises.) Yes. nice to see you on the everything list! So maybe I asked for the wrong thing from Edgar. I think that you ask, what we all ask. To be intelligible. But Edgar, like some other seem to have certainties, which is a defect of bad scientists/philosophers. That makes them arguing like bad priest. I don't suppose I will get anything remotely like the Principia no matter how many times I ask, Thousand of pages of symbolic writing? That would not help. but out of interest, what should I be asking him for? Clear informal assumptions. He made a good try for his p-time. That he does not understand (or really study) the rebuttal is his problem, not yours. Better always to focus on the points. You can always say: sorry, I don't understand. It is up to him to be more clear. Again, if he thinks that you are stupid, that is his own problem, not yours (unless he is your director of thesis of course, or your boss or something). I'm sure there is something that is more formal than just a lot of hand waving and nonsensical-seeming verbiage, Yes. A clear theory, clear statements and clear means of verification, like honest scientists and like serious philosophers, but unlike anyone trying to convince that some statements are true or obvious. Assumptions are the obvious things that we can try to refute. while not being formal in the sense used by logicians. Sure. In fact rigor is orthogonal to formalness. The logicians distinction between formal and informal is very important for us, though. We will come back on this. Note that we can study informally the formal things, like in mathematical logic. But we can also study formally some notion of informalness, and that is what appears with the Bp p logic (as with the Bp Dt p) formal logics (S4Grz, X, Z, X*, etc.). That will be important later. that motivates me even more to explain the modal logic. 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
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com 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... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread in that fashion. Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain *to the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to*, that his privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, consent, digital spying, cryptography etc... Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-) PGC 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote: 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? Logically, yes. But you need hyper-determinism, that is you need to select very special boundary conditions, which makes Cramer's transaction theory close to Bohm's theory. I'm not sure what you mean by special boundary conditions. The bcs in an Aspect type experiment are the device which creates the photons, and the settings of the measuring apparatuses. These are special but only in that the photons are entangled ... note that this isn't Cramer's or Bohm's theory (the transaction theory requires far more complexity that this). Time symmetry in the laws of physics alone, without any special restriction on boundary conditions, can't get you violation of Bell inequalities. Ordinary time symmetry doesn't mean you have to take into account both future and past to determine what happens in a given region of spacetime after all, it just means you can deduce it equally well going in *either* direction. So in a deterministic time-symmetric theory (Price's speculations about hidden variables are at least compatible with determinism) it's still true that what happens in any region of spacetime can be determined entirely by events in its past light cone, say the ones occurring at some arbitrarily-chosen initial tim. This means that in a Price-like theory where measurement results are explained in terms of hidden variables the particles carry with them from emitter to experimenters, it must be true that the original assignment of the hidden variables to each particle at the emitter is determined by the past light cone of the event of each particle leaving the emitter. Meanwhile, the event of an experimenter choosing which measurement to perform will have its own past light cone, and there are plenty of events in the past light cone of the choice that do *not* lie in the past light cone of the particles leaving the emitter. So, without any restriction on boundary conditions, one can choose an ensemble of possible initial conditions with the following properties: 1. The initial states of all points in space that line in the past light cone of the particles leaving the emitter are identical for each member of the ensemble, so in every possible history generated from these initial conditions, the particles have the same hidden variables associated with them. 2. The initial states of points in space that lie in the past light cone of the experimenters choosing what spin direction to measure vary in different members of the ensemble, in such a way that all combinations of measurement choices are represented in different histories chosen from this ensemble. If both these conditions apply, Bell's proofs that various inequalities shouldn't be violated works just fine--for example, there's no combination of hidden variables you can choose for the particle pair that ensure that in all the histories where the experimenters measure along the *same* axis they get opposite results (spin-up for one experimenter, spin-down for the other) with probability 1, but in all the histories where they measure along two *different* axes they have less than a 1/3 chance of getting opposite results. Only by having the hidden variables assigned during emission be statistically correlated to the choices the experimenters later make about measurements can Price's argument work, and the argument above shows that time-symmetry without special boundary conditions won't suffice for this. Jesse Those are still many-world theories, + some ugly selection principle to get one branch. It is very not natural, as you have quasi microsuperposition (appearance of many branches), but the macro-one are eliminated by ad hoc boundary conditions, which will differ depending on where you will decide to introduce the Heisenberg cut. Also, QM will prevent us to know or measure those boundary conditions, which makes them into (local, perhaps, in *some* sense) hidden variable theory. I don't understand the above. The theory is simply QM with no collapse and with no preferred time direction (it assumes any system which violates Bell's inequality has to operate below the level where decoherence brings in the effects of the entropy gradient). It is both local and realistic, since time symmetry is Bell's 4th assumption - it allows EPR experiments to be local and realistic (I am relying on John Bell for this information, I wouldn't be able to work it out myself). So it definitely is a hidden variable theory. I think for it to work
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
I am basically a humanist here, speaking only for myself. A secular one, most often, and a religious humanist, on occasion. So, I always nag, to gain perspective: How does this intellectual pursuit, help humanity, how does this help the human condition? Yes, its a buzz kill, I admit. But, I want to encourage the brightest people, to direct themselves to this additional pursuit. I do admit, that science for its own sake is worthy, but that science applied to resolving human problems are the bomb. (American expression!) Example: Physicist, Craig Hogan at Fermilab, analyzes cosmic rays, especially neutrinos, as part of his work, but additionally ponders the data to see if it supports the notion that the visible universe may just be a hologram, a simulation. Now that would be the bomb. Stuff, like dat, dere! -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 9:45 am Subject: Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com 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... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread in that fashion. Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain to the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to, that his privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, consent, digital spying, cryptography etc... Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-) PGC 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
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
PGC, No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted was in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My post. If you can't even get your facts straight you can't be taken seriously Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45:03 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript: wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: 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 edga...@att.net javascript:. And you said i didn't read things... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread in that fashion. Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain *to the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to*, that his privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, consent, digital spying, cryptography etc... Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-) PGC 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). OK? Bruno Is this necessarily true if the simulation were run on a quantum computer so the simulants observed a kind of FPI? 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:10, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote: 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? Logically, yes. But you need hyper-determinism, that is you need to select very special boundary conditions, which makes Cramer's transaction theory close to Bohm's theory. I'm not sure what you mean by special boundary conditions. The bcs in an Aspect type experiment are the device which creates the photons, and the settings of the measuring apparatuses. The setting of the analyser must be predetermined. And not in the mechanist sense, where the choice of the analyser is still made by you, even if deterministically so. With only one branch, you are not just using irreversibility, but you are using the boundary condition selecting a branch among all in the universal wave. In Wheeler's 'ItBit' empirical quantum model, that is because in controlled experiments the detector observers on the detection plane all ask the same question, thereby always selecting the same spacetime/branch for photon statistics. These are special but only in that the photons are entangled ... note that this isn't Cramer's or Bohm's theory (the transaction theory requires far more complexity that this). Those are still many-world theories, + some ugly selection principle to get one branch. It is very not natural, as you have quasi microsuperposition (appearance of many branches), but the macro-one are eliminated by ad hoc boundary conditions, which will differ depending on where you will decide to introduce the Heisenberg cut. Also, QM will prevent us to know or measure those boundary conditions, which makes them into (local, perhaps, in *some* sense) hidden variable theory. I don't understand the above. The theory is simply QM with no collapse and with no preferred time direction (it assumes any system which violates Bell's inequality has to operate below the level where decoherence brings in the effects of the entropy gradient). It is both local and realistic, since time symmetry is Bell's 4th assumption - it allows EPR experiments to be local and realistic (I am relying on John Bell for this information, I wouldn't be able to work it out myself). So it definitely is a hidden variable theory. Yes, and I am willing to accept it is local. but it is hyper-determined. It means that if I chose the setting of the two analyser in the Aspect experience by looking at my horoscope, that horoscope was determined by the whole future of the phsyical universe. Logically possible, you are right, but ugly, as it is a selection principle based on boundary conditions. It is more local than Bohm, and it does not need a new potential, but it is sill using abnormal special data for the TOE. It is no more a nice and gentle equation like the SWE, but that same equation together with tuns of mega-terra-gigabyte of data. Same comment as above but now controlled experiments also use the gentle equation like the SWE', but still in the context of an MWI reality. Richard I think for it to work the system is kept from undergoing decoherence or any interaction that would lead to MWI branching. EPR experiments only appear to work for systems that are shielded from such effects, I think? So there isn't a problem with the MWI - the whole thing takes place in one branch, with no quantum interfence etc being relevant. (I believe that EPR experiments lose their ability to violate Bell's inequality once interactions occur that could cause MWI branching within the system under consideration???) A recent paper suggests that decoherence in the experiment particle preparations are a stronger source of branching than decoherence in the detector. In terms of Wheeler theory, that amounts to the initial observer, the prepemit particle observer, being more capable of producing branching by asking a variety of questions (decohered questions) or even random questions, than the final detector observer asking just random questions is capable of producing branching.. http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-to-classical-transition-fuzziness.html ? Many worlds is far less ad-hoc, imo. There is no Heisenberg cut, and the boundary conditions does not play any special role, and indeed they are all realized in the universal wave (and in arithmetic). Please explain about the Heisenberg cut. I've heard the term, but don't know how it relates to EPR experiments. The Heinsenberg cut is where the wave should collapse in the Copenhagen QM. Von Neumann
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
2014/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net edgaro...@att.net 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? And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). OK? Bruno Is this necessarily true if the simulation were run on a quantum computer so the simulants observed a kind of FPI? I think the soon or later is wrong, unless he would have a complete comp theory in which he extracted the physics and use it to predict things in his reality and face discrepancy... either he will acknowledge comp is wrong, or he is in a simulation... but even if he is in a simulation, if comp is true, at each steps, there is a continuation which is not in the simulation... the thing then will be to know the proportion of continuations which are in a simulation vs which are not... But *some* individuals running in a simulation are doomed to *never* know it... whatever they try, because there will always exists by definition a continuation where the observer is unaware of inhabiting such simulation. Quentin Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of reality then you ARE effectively saying that Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists. whether you verbalize it or not, and that is your implicit unstated fundamental axiom. That is certainly not less circular than my fundamental axiom, and considerably less convincing If that is not your fundamental axiom then what is? Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful. Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful. The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all. but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'. self-necessitating contains two hot complex notions: self and necessitate. We want to explain the complex from the simple, not the other way round. So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental axiom. If that was true, you would not need to say so. What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me You should also never put statements in the mouth of others, especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would have said that arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists. I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where the assumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanist assumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survive with an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is not excluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at some level, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, it is implied by your computational stance. So my assumption, at that level, is a tiny part of your assumption. By reasoning at that meta-level (UDA), we get as meta-theorem that the TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementary axioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + the axioms, where you can read s(x) by the successor of the number x. 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is in that theory that we define the observers and derive physics (and more). That's AUDA, or the machine's interview (in the sane2004 paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical and experimentally testable. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, Then it is circular. 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. That is not intelligible. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Assuming that there is a universe. But then you do not explain why there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is something exists. 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. That is digital physics, which is refuted. Thus of course consistency applies to it. That does not follow. Machines can be 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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-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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 15 Jan 2014, at 15:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms
of your UDA then where do those come from?
Russell and Whitehead suggested that they could be derived from logic
alone, but that has been refuted, and today, we know that we cannot
derive arithmetic from anything less than the first order logic
specification of a universal Turing system.
For the TOE I could use another Turing-complete theory, like the
combinators, with the two axioms
Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)(the precise meaning of this being not relevant
right now)
From those two axioms, I can derive the arithmetic axioms.
From the arithmetic axioms, I can derive the two combinator axioms.
But from anything less than a Turing-complete theory, I can't derive
the existence of arithmetic or any other Turing-complete theory.
I guess you need to study some math to see what happens. I try to
explain the matter with enough detail from times to times, so that you
might grasp (independently of believing it or not).
Unless you can answer that question you have a gap in your theory
that mine doesn't have.
?
Your theory is fuzzy, and seem to assume quantum mechanics, which
assumes arithmetic. The very notion of computations assumes arithmetic
too. Your theory assumes also a physical or psychological reality
(your present time).
Can you justify the numbers and prove addition and multiplication from
less than another choice of universal machine/number/system/language?
Our conscious understanding of {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is a mystery, but
comp illustrates that it might be:
1) necessarily mysterious,
2) and, with the laws of addition and multiplication, the only mystery.
Comp explains, I think, why our understanding of {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} can
seem and even *be* obvious, *from* the first person point of view. But
that point of view is not communicable, and the (Löbian) machines
already know that (in precise rather standard sense).
In mathematics, that obviousness is more or less captured by either
a much less obvious theory (like set theory, or category
theory, ...), or by second order logic, which gives non effective
theories (proofs are no more checkable).
Once you assume comp, it is just a matter of work to understand that
the arithmetical reality is full of life and mysteries, when seen from
inside.
I don't know if comp is true, but the point is that by its relation
with computer science and mathematical logic, comp, well classical
comp if you prefer, is made testable/refutable.
Bruno
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful.
Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful.
The fundamental axiom MUST be circular,
Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all.
but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I
said it was 'self-necessitating'.
self-necessitating contains two hot complex notions: self and
necessitate.
We want to explain the complex from the simple, not the other way
round.
So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful
fundamental axiom.
If that was true, you would not need to say so.
What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because
arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom
to me
You should also never put statements in the mouth of others,
especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would have
said that arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists.
I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where the
assumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanist
assumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survive
with an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is not
excluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at some
level, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, it
is implied by your computational stance.
So my assumption, at that level, is a tiny part of your assumption.
By reasoning at that meta-level (UDA), we get as meta-theorem that
the TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementary
axioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + the
axioms, where you can read s(x) by the successor of the number x.
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
Then, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is in
that theory that we define the observers and derive physics (and
more). That's AUDA, or the machine's interview (in the sane2004
paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical and
experimentally testable.
Bruno
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L.
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Bruno, On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say. Yes, and Terren. I think the answer is more complex than that. The simulation is locally finite, but so are all simulations. There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics. The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in our physics. For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that is not compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be uploaded to a simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer clear which measure is more probable. It seems possible to me that Glak's measure is greatest in the alternative physics. Terren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: PGC, No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted was in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My post. If you can't even get your facts straight you can't be taken seriously Edgar Just exchange start for fuel and my interpretation, including that the thread is increasingly derailed by your private details + implications as subject, stays the same. I don't get my facts straight because I don't really care about the details of this nonsense. Inappropriate from both sides and doesn't belong into the thread, as I don't understand what this is contributing to consciousness/states of matter etc. If you can make that clear, please share. PGC On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45:03 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com 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 edga...@att.net. And you said i didn't read things... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread in that fashion. Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain *to the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to*, that his privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, consent, digital spying, cryptography etc... Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-) PGC 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
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com 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... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread in that fashion. Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain to the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to, that his privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, consent, digital spying, cryptography etc... Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-) PGC I fancy myself an anarchist, but you frequently make me feel conservative :) From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while being attacked by someone using a pseudonym. I have nothing against pseudonyms and I use them too, but I don't think it's fair play to do the sort of thing freqflyer did while using one. Telmo. 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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of reality then you ARE effectively saying that Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists. That is true. But the premise is incorrect. I do not assume that the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of reality. That is, on the contrary, what I *prove*, from the computationalist assumption. UDA proves it quickly, (in 8th step) and AUDA extracts constructively the quanta (and the qualia). whether you verbalize it or not, and that is your implicit unstated fundamental axiom. That is certainly not less circular than my fundamental axiom, and considerably less convincing If that is not your fundamental axiom then what is? The intuitive theology (comp) is the bet that I would survive, or even that I would not notice the difference, once a computer simulating my body, at some level of description, is provided. (yes doctor) UDA shows, or is supposed to show, that if that is true, then physics has to be recovered by a relative statistical calculus on all computations (modalized by internal points of view, or indexicals) in arithmetic. UDA shows that the TOE is anything Turing complete thing. I use Arithmetic because it is taught in school. AUDA does a part of that recovering, so we can already compare that physics with the actual observation. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful. Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful. The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all. but it must be so in a meaningful way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'. self-necessitating contains two hot complex notions: self and necessitate. We want to explain the complex from the simple, not the other way round. So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental axiom. If that was true, you would not need to say so. What is YOUR fundamental axiom? 'Arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists' perhaps? Sounds like a similarly circular axiom to me You should also never put statements in the mouth of others, especially when they are completely ridiculous, like if I would have said that arithmetic exists because arithmetic exists. I am working at two levels: an intuitive meta-level, where the assumption is a precise version of Milinda-Descartes old mechanist assumption. To put it shortly it says that not only I can survive with an artificial heart, kidney, skin, but that the brain is not excluded from that list. It means that my body functions, at some level, like some sort of machine. As far as I understand you, it is implied by your computational stance. So my assumption, at that level, is a tiny part of your assumption. By reasoning at that meta-level (UDA), we get as meta-theorem that the TOE does not need to assume more than the usual elementary axioms of arithmetic. One precise theory is classical logic + the axioms, where you can read s(x) by the successor of the number x. 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x Then, in that theory, all the terms I need are defined. It is in that theory that we define the observers and derive physics (and more). That's AUDA, or the machine's interview (in the sane2004 paper). Comp makes the whole thing both mathematical and experimentally testable. Bruno Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, Then it is circular. 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. That is not intelligible. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Assuming that there is a universe. But then you do not explain why there is something. You just assume this. You axiom is something exists. 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. That is digital physics, which is refuted. Thus of course consistency applies to it. That does not follow. Machines can be inconsistent. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:43, Jason Resch wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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? And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). OK? Bruno Is this necessarily true if the simulation were run on a quantum computer so the simulants observed a kind of FPI? But even a classical computer inherit our FPI. The global FPI should be completely invariant. You might only make the task of the simulant more difficult, by some encoding. In a sense, you couldt add complexity to the task of failing them on physics, as you exploit the root of the FPI, (in case comp gives exactly QM, and the Heisenberg uncertainty circumscribe our level of substitution). The simulants themselves follow the FPI all the times. The difficulty, is making them relating their normal histories. I might try to think of a better answer. The difficulty is that a precise answer to this depends on the precise relation between the comp FPI and Everett FPI. Bruno Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Hey everyone, I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to bother others about it. Edgar has repeatedly posted links to both his business and personal website, and his life companion request is there right on the front page, so I'm not sure how that constitutes snooping. For Edgar, if it is true that you did lose your wife to cancer recently, I am very sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer when I was young, and I lost a close friend last Christmas to cancer as well, so I know how that feels. Just digging down to nuts and bolts for a second, though, for those members on the list that subscribe to some version of Everything Theory, (Bruno's UD, various forms of computer simulation universe, Craig's multisense realism), I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what is the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories? Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where Everything exists and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal substrate and where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole humanistic, existentialist point of these theories to offer us a bit of succor in the face of inevitable death? That is why I am interested in this stuff -- not simply for the intellectual fun and games of it all, but because I am truly terrified of oblivion and of losing everything I love to that oblivion, and yet everything in my observed world tells me that when we die, we are basically broken machines and our world completely and permanently disappears for us. That is why I desperately want to be convinced of any of the Everything theories that are discussed here, although I admit that the degree to which any of them offer any comfort at all is relative to how one is able to interpret the consequences of such theories to find a place for your personality in the Everything. I didn't think pasting quite publicly available text from Edgar's website constitutes a personal attack. Edgar seems quite happy to keep that information up on the web for anyone to see, so I hardly think it constitutes snooping to cite it in a different forum. And my original observation that I could understand why he was alone was motivated by his continued truculence and seeming inability to incorporate and respond to the many pieces of feedback he had been given about his theory... I wouldn't want to be around somebody in real life who demonstrated such regular and fatuous disregard for what I was saying. So, just to sum up, I apologize, Edgar, for any pain that my copying and pasting of the text on your website caused you, and I apologize for suggesting that the reason you are alone is because you are probably a difficult person to live with in real life. I don't know anything about you in real life (aside from what you've put on your website, assuming it is all true), and I realize that this forum is not the place to engage in personal attacks. I'll be more thoughtful in the future. Best regards, Dan Menon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified block time is false. 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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-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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote: Bruno, On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say. Yes, and Terren. I think the answer is more complex than that. The simulation is locally finite, but so are all simulations. OK. There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics. You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies. The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno It is a complex question. is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in our physics. At which level? What does that mean? For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that is not compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be uploaded to a simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer clear which measure is more probable. It seems possible to me that Glak's measure is greatest in the alternative physics. No problem with that. Then we will not fail him from his first person perspective, because he will go back there in a nanosecond. And the poor 3p-I staying here with us, well, he will suspect something too, soon or later, for the preview reasons. This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us, and that can be approached by some modal logics related to arithmetical self-reference. It is hard for me to really decide if UDA is more simple or more complex than AUDA, on the heart of the subject. You might tell me, soon or later :) Bruno Terren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time You did not (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment) It does not... , so since SR is well verified block time is false. BS Quentin 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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-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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this
Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Dan, First, thanks for the apology which I gratefully accept. However you have your facts completely wrong. It was NOT ME that posted a link to my personal blog, not a single one. It was Terren that did that as I recall, but it most certainly was NOT ME. I did post a SINGLE link to my company site later in response to questions why I was late in responding to some posts what I was busy doing...(Liz and others criticized my lack of immediate response on several occasions but I at least do have a real life apart from this group!) So your claim that Edgar REPEATEDLY posted links to both his business and personal website is simply FALSE. I posted only one link period. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:20:29 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to bother others about it. Edgar has repeatedly posted links to both his business and personal website, and his life companion request is there right on the front page, so I'm not sure how that constitutes snooping. For Edgar, if it is true that you did lose your wife to cancer recently, I am very sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer when I was young, and I lost a close friend last Christmas to cancer as well, so I know how that feels. Just digging down to nuts and bolts for a second, though, for those members on the list that subscribe to some version of Everything Theory, (Bruno's UD, various forms of computer simulation universe, Craig's multisense realism), I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what is the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories? Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where Everything exists and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal substrate and where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole humanistic, existentialist point of these theories to offer us a bit of succor in the face of inevitable death? That is why I am interested in this stuff -- not simply for the intellectual fun and games of it all, but because I am truly terrified of oblivion and of losing everything I love to that oblivion, and yet everything in my observed world tells me that when we die, we are basically broken machines and our world completely and permanently disappears for us. That is why I desperately want to be convinced of any of the Everything theories that are discussed here, although I admit that the degree to which any of them offer any comfort at all is relative to how one is able to interpret the consequences of such theories to find a place for your personality in the Everything. I didn't think pasting quite publicly available text from Edgar's website constitutes a personal attack. Edgar seems quite happy to keep that information up on the web for anyone to see, so I hardly think it constitutes snooping to cite it in a different forum. And my original observation that I could understand why he was alone was motivated by his continued truculence and seeming inability to incorporate and respond to the many pieces of feedback he had been given about his theory... I wouldn't want to be around somebody in real life who demonstrated such regular and fatuous disregard for what I was saying. So, just to sum up, I apologize, Edgar, for any pain that my copying and pasting of the text on your website caused you, and I apologize for suggesting that the reason you are alone is because you are probably a difficult person to live with in real life. I don't know anything about you in real life (aside from what you've put on your website, assuming it is all true), and I realize that this forum is not the place to engage in personal attacks. I'll be more thoughtful in the future. Best regards, Dan Menon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Quentin, If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain what is wrong with that argument specifically? Do you actually remember the argument? Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not sufficient Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time You did not (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment) It does not... , so since SR is well verified block time is false. BS Quentin 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Quentin, If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain what is wrong with that argument specifically? People have already done it... The main problem, is that there is *no* universal common present time, it has been shown to you several time. But you decided there is, you don't read proofs there is not (claiming SR advocate a universal present time is such BS), you ignore them and pretend you've demonstrated something when obviously you did not in any common sense of the meaning of the word proof... Do you actually remember the argument? I do, it is plain BS. Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not sufficient I don't see a point now proving anything to you, you'll ignore it, and tell others that to understand you theory, they have to understand first your theory to understand your theory to understand your theory because you're so obviously right and someone equiped with a brain should obviously sees it.. it's so obvious. Quentin Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time You did not (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment) It does not... , so since SR is well verified block time is false. BS Quentin 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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
Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Quentin, You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly comment on whether it is valid or not Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: Quentin, If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain what is wrong with that argument specifically? People have already done it... The main problem, is that there is *no* universal common present time, it has been shown to you several time. But you decided there is, you don't read proofs there is not (claiming SR advocate a universal present time is such BS), you ignore them and pretend you've demonstrated something when obviously you did not in any common sense of the meaning of the word proof... Do you actually remember the argument? I do, it is plain BS. Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not sufficient I don't see a point now proving anything to you, you'll ignore it, and tell others that to understand you theory, they have to understand first your theory to understand your theory to understand your theory because you're so obviously right and someone equiped with a brain should obviously sees it.. it's so obvious. Quentin Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time You did not (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment) It does not... , so since SR is well verified block time is false. BS Quentin 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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 ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more
Re: Tegmark's New Book
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Quentin, You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly comment on whether it is valid or not You make my point It's obvious, the problem is with me, not your theory. Quentin Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net Quentin, If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain what is wrong with that argument specifically? People have already done it... The main problem, is that there is *no* universal common present time, it has been shown to you several time. But you decided there is, you don't read proofs there is not (claiming SR advocate a universal present time is such BS), you ignore them and pretend you've demonstrated something when obviously you did not in any common sense of the meaning of the word proof... Do you actually remember the argument? I do, it is plain BS. Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not sufficient I don't see a point now proving anything to you, you'll ignore it, and tell others that to understand you theory, they have to understand first your theory to understand your theory to understand your theory because you're so obviously right and someone equiped with a brain should obviously sees it.. it's so obvious. Quentin Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time You did not (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment) It does not... , so since SR is well verified block time is false. BS Quentin 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for the correction. But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is riddled with contradictions and lacunas I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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. I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in previous posts. I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. all math is an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. Now, if you believe that 29 is prime does depend on you, show me the functional relation between 29 is prime and you, with you defined without using the notion of numbers. Bruno 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 edga...@att.net 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 ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Fair enough, I retract repeatedly posted links to his personal website... I guess, in my mind, it just seemed like you repeatedly posted links to your website, because it always seems like you end up talking about yourself and your book, and not about the ideas you have, and when you do talk about the ideas you have, you provide such flimsy justifications for them and they are repeatedly and decisively refuted by people on this list, but you don't ever seem to acknowledge this or engage debate honestly or in good faith. So, ya, it only seemed like you posted to your personal blog repeatedly because you do very frequently talk about yourself and how your ideas are so very important, all the while failing to engage the many (very justified) criticisms of them on their own terms, and also frequently resorting to calling people dumb or stupid for not getting what you are saying, all the while receiving what appears to me to be very compassionate and patient explanations of why your ideas are either a) irrelevant (i.e. they don't solve any problems or anomalies that GR and SR can't already handle or b) provably wrong (i.e. the assumption of absolute simultaneity). On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:48:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Dan, First, thanks for the apology which I gratefully accept. However you have your facts completely wrong. It was NOT ME that posted a link to my personal blog, not a single one. It was Terren that did that as I recall, but it most certainly was NOT ME. I did post a SINGLE link to my company site later in response to questions why I was late in responding to some posts what I was busy doing...(Liz and others criticized my lack of immediate response on several occasions but I at least do have a real life apart from this group!) So your claim that Edgar REPEATEDLY posted links to both his business and personal website is simply FALSE. I posted only one link period. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:20:29 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey everyone, I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to bother others about it. Edgar has repeatedly posted links to both his business and personal website, and his life companion request is there right on the front page, so I'm not sure how that constitutes snooping. For Edgar, if it is true that you did lose your wife to cancer recently, I am very sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer when I was young, and I lost a close friend last Christmas to cancer as well, so I know how that feels. Just digging down to nuts and bolts for a second, though, for those members on the list that subscribe to some version of Everything Theory, (Bruno's UD, various forms of computer simulation universe, Craig's multisense realism), I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what is the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories? Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where Everything exists and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal substrate and where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole humanistic, existentialist point of these theories to offer us a bit of succor in the face of inevitable death? That is why I am interested in this stuff -- not simply for the intellectual fun and games of it all, but because I am truly terrified of oblivion and of losing everything I love to that oblivion, and yet everything in my observed world tells me that when we die, we are basically broken machines and our world completely and permanently disappears for us. That is why I desperately want to be convinced of any of the Everything theories that are discussed here, although I admit that the degree to which any of them offer any comfort at all is relative to how one is able to interpret the consequences of such theories to find a place for your personality in the Everything. I didn't think pasting quite publicly available text from Edgar's website constitutes a personal attack. Edgar seems quite happy to keep that information up on the web for anyone to see, so I hardly think it constitutes snooping to cite it in a different forum. And my original observation that I could understand why he was alone was motivated by his continued truculence and seeming inability to incorporate and respond to the many pieces of feedback he had been given about his theory... I wouldn't want to be around somebody in real life who demonstrated such regular and fatuous disregard for what I was saying. So, just to sum up, I apologize, Edgar, for any pain that my copying and pasting of the text on your website caused you, and I apologize for suggesting that the reason you are alone is because you are
Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding your own death, as there are no guarantees about the quality of the surviving continuations. I remember Bruno saying once (paraphrasing) consciousness is a prison. The one comfort I do enjoy from it - to the extent that I place any faith in it - is not fearing dying in a plane crash. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I am not sure whether or not the word is defined differently or more clearly in New Zealand, but there is definitely no clear meaning for the term in the states, and here only about 1/3 of women polled described themselves as feminist. 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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Wow, Liz, very sorry to hear about your friend. If you don't mind me asking (and if you do mind, simply ignore my question), if you magically just knew that the universe was in fact a large computation engine where all possibilities are eventually played out, and also entailing some form of QTI, would this provide any comfort to you at all? As far as I understand Bruno's UD, (and I'm really still not sure I understand it, despite lurking here for years and reading old posts) a consequence of being embedding in the universal computational structure as a machine is the fact that we cannot ever prove the correctness of our beliefs because our consistency is only relative to the part of the universal function we inhabit, and there could be other domains of computation where our beliefs would turn out to be false. Of course, what I just said could also be a load of gobbledygook because, as I admitted, I don't fully understand the entire argument, nor do I really grasp what the conclusion of the argument is supposed to be, nor do I really even understand what kind of ethical import any TOE could have on our behaviors here in the local domain. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On what authority do you make such claims? On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
2014/1/15 freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com On what authority do you make such claims? Isn't it obvious ? His own, it is so obviously obvious, it's a shame^Wjoke you didn't obviously register so obvious. Quentin On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite. Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite would imply comp is wrong. In a finite world it seems it would be even easier to be sure of saying yes to the doctor. I think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it means that an artificial brain is possible other times it means that plus the whole UDA. 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 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote: On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com 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. Ah ... Me too :) Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ... I'd like to know what the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic, especially the finitist ones, implies for comp? 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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time, like tears in rain... ;-) ... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example the claim that: When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. ... but many other (highly educated, scientific, philosophical) human beings disagree that it is obvious and/or can't see what is plainly apparent to only one of them, what should that single person who has (by some miracle of the universe) been given privileged access to the unvarnished truth of the universe do about it? Should they: a) call people who disagree with them too stupid to get it b) revise their beliefs concerning the obvious nature of the truth they think they possess c) suspect on the basis of the responses they are getting from otherwise intelligent people that perhaps their unique insight is in error d) ignore all claims to the contrary and persist in their beliefs e) patiently re-explain, in a different way, using different analogies, the substance of their claim and f) be willing to revise their beliefs on the basis of what others tell them, assuming they do not have an overexaggerated confidence in their own ability to discern the truth These are not mutually exclusive options. It seems to me Edgar has done a lot of option a and option d -- e has not been used because no analogies, thought experiments, or formal apparatus has been offered for honest inspection- merely a series of re-assertions that it is quite obvious that X, and I don't understand why no one else gets it -- the rest of the options are also not evident. I'd be interested to get some feedback on this question, as I think self-delusion and self-deception are germane to any discussion of Everything theories, and this is also why it is the domain of so many cranks. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:32:28 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: On what authority do you make such claims? Isn't it obvious ? His own, it is so obviously obvious, it's a shame^Wjoke you didn't obviously register so obvious. Quentin On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness
Hey Craig! I watched the video... very cool! Questions: 1) Who is the user of the interface? What is us? 2) What is the interface representing? Hoffman uses the analogy of the file and the trash bin icons on the desktop. In a computer, I know that the file ultimately represents binary values that are encoded on a physical portion of my hard disk. The values themselves are voltage potentials that are sustained in a persistent way thanks to the laws of quantum physics (aside: jeez, who would have thought such a random theory could provide such stability at the macroscopic level?) and are interpreted by a human user. What is the analogue of the voltage potentials in the interface theory? Cheers, Dan On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:31:56 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousnesshttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics. You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies. I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics. What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from something more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine. There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno Marchal. Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes through our consciousness, in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity of Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and identity must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology, in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of Glak's memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics. The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of us, as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment. Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of physics, then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of Glak's identity, and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I think, require that alternative body, which require an alternative physics. I'm wondering if there's room in the math for an accounting of consciousness that goes beyond Lobian machines in such a way as to allow for alternate physics. Terren The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno It is a complex question. is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in our physics. At which level? What does that mean? For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that is not compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be uploaded to a simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer clear which measure is more probable. It seems possible to me that Glak's measure is greatest in the alternative physics. No problem with that. Then we will not fail him from his first person perspective, because he will go back there in a nanosecond. And the poor 3p-I staying here with us, well, he will suspect something too, soon or later, for the preview reasons. This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us, and that can be approached by some modal logics related to arithmetical self-reference. It is hard for me to really decide if UDA is more simple or more complex than AUDA, on the heart of the subject. You might tell me, soon or later :) Bruno Terren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
RE: A different take on the ontological status of Math
Stephen -- I like how he derives the natural numbers from some basic set operations on an empty set. One question though how does the empty set itself arise. While an empty set contains; it is not the same thing as nothing. It is a container; it envelopes, contains, encompasses. Even if something exists that contains nothing it is itself something - a minimal something perhaps - but never the less it is not a formless nothing, but rather it is a conceptual entity that contains nothing. Not trying to be obdurate, driven by curiosity to understand. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Paul King Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 6:48 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: A different take on the ontological status of Math Dear Friends, I highly recommend Louis H. Kauffman's new blog. His latest post speaks to the Becoming interpretation of mathematics that I advocate: http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/is-mathematics-real/ -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/15/2014 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not convinced, as I tend to not believe in any primitive time and space, at least when I tend to believe in comp (of course I *know* nothing). QM is indeed reversible (in large part), but using this to select one branch by boundary condition, is still like a form of cosmic solipsism to me. We can't refute it, and unlike most QM collapse theories, we can't criticize it from locality and determinacy, but that does not yet make it convincing compare to MW, and infinitely more so in the comp frame, where we can't avoid the many dreams. It's just information from the future - which is exactly the same thing as true randomness, and both are operationally the same as FPI. That's why I think an advancement in QM interpretation would be to derive probability. Comp provides an explanation of randomness, but it's not clear to me that it implies a complex Hilbert space. 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 1/15/2014 4:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer program. It's always able to compute its next computation. Same with the 'program' that computes reality. It is always able to compute the next state of the universe. If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a universe but there is. Therefore Godel does NOT apply to the running program of reality just as it does NOT apply to all the computer programs running all over the world right now. Therefore the actual logico-mathematical system that continually computes reality MUST BE logically self-consistent and logically complete. So where does the randomness of QM come from? 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 1/15/2014 4:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com 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 atedgaro...@att.net. And you said i didn't read things... This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt I agree, Telmo. I think there is far too much mockery and insult. Civility and courtesy better serve the search for knowledge. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us What does same mean here. Same coupling constants?...same number of Higgs bosons?...same spacetime dimensions? 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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On 1/15/2014 11:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding your own death, as there are no guarantees about the quality of the surviving continuations. I remember Bruno saying once (paraphrasing) consciousness is a prison. The one comfort I do enjoy from it - to the extent that I place any faith in it - is not fearing dying in a plane crash. For anyone comforted by QTI I recommend reading Divided by Infinity. It's a short story you can read online. Brent I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality by not dying. --- Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go at the other person's perceived motivations? To believe otherwise may be comforting and may be superstition, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. You should study logical forms sometime. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. If I thought for a moment you could back that up with any reasoned argument, I would ask you to provide 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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On 16 January 2014 09:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/15/2014 11:12 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: Right, and QTI isn't even much of a comfort in terms of avoiding your own death, as there are no guarantees about the quality of the surviving continuations. I remember Bruno saying once (paraphrasing) consciousness is a prison. The one comfort I do enjoy from it - to the extent that I place any faith in it - is not fearing dying in a plane crash. For anyone comforted by QTI I recommend reading Divided by Infinity. It's a short story you can read online. True. But I've accepted worse. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
This, after he has already agreed that he would say yes to the doctor. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go at the other person's perceived motivations? To believe otherwise may be comforting and may be superstition, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. You should study logical forms sometime. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. If I thought for a moment you could back that up with any reasoned argument, I would ask you to provide 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On 16 January 2014 08:28, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote: Wow, Liz, very sorry to hear about your friend. If you don't mind me asking (and if you do mind, simply ignore my question), if you magically just knew that the universe was in fact a large computation engine where all possibilities are eventually played out, and also entailing some form of QTI, would this provide any comfort to you at all? Thank you, but it was very a long time ago (it did indirectly precipitate me realising that I had end my first marriage, and started me writing after a gap of many years strange thing, life) To answer your question it would provide some comfort, after a fashion. I agree that QTI is a terrifying prospect in many ways, but my guess is that eventually it would mean that everyone ended up in an advanced civilisation capable of uploading them (as per Frank Tipler's Omega point idea) - although maybe only after thousands (or millions) of years of being the living dead... As far as I understand Bruno's UD, (and I'm really still not sure I understand it, despite lurking here for years and reading old posts) a consequence of being embedding in the universal computational structure as a machine is the fact that we cannot ever prove the correctness of our beliefs because our consistency is only relative to the part of the universal function we inhabit, and there could be other domains of computation where our beliefs would turn out to be false. Of course, what I just said could also be a load of gobbledygook because, as I admitted, I don't fully understand the entire argument, nor do I really grasp what the conclusion of the argument is supposed to be, nor do I really even understand what kind of ethical import any TOE could have on our behaviors here in the local domain. I agree with all the above! All I can add is that it's still interesting to think about these matters. (Maybe I'm just trying to keep senility at bay...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On 16 January 2014 08:52, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote: So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time, like tears in rain... ;-) ... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example the claim that: When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. ... but many other (highly educated, scientific, philosophical) human beings disagree that it is obvious and/or can't see what is plainly apparent to only one of them, what should that single person who has (by some miracle of the universe) been given privileged access to the unvarnished truth of the universe do about it? Should they: a) call people who disagree with them too stupid to get it b) revise their beliefs concerning the obvious nature of the truth they think they possess c) suspect on the basis of the responses they are getting from otherwise intelligent people that perhaps their unique insight is in error d) ignore all claims to the contrary and persist in their beliefs e) patiently re-explain, in a different way, using different analogies, the substance of their claim and f) be willing to revise their beliefs on the basis of what others tell them, assuming they do not have an overexaggerated confidence in their own ability to discern the truth These are not mutually exclusive options. It seems to me Edgar has done a lot of option a and option d -- e has not been used because no analogies, thought experiments, or formal apparatus has been offered for honest inspection- merely a series of re-assertions that it is quite obvious that X, and I don't understand why no one else gets it -- the rest of the options are also not evident. I agree. I've repeatedly asked for some sort of (e) or (f), but got exactly zilch. And I may be too stupid to get it, but I'm not so stupid that I intend to keep asking him honest questions in good faith and get knocked back forever. Plus, he doesn't even get the nuances of satirical replies, nor does he come out with anything that's actually witty, rather than clumsy and obvious attempts at humour. I always thought you lived in the 19th century, ho ho! isn't exactly sparkling, witty, barbed, to the point, or even based on anything whatsoever that I've said apart from me gently pointing out that some sci-fi nonsense has come to pass during the last 100 years. So even the entertainment value drops off after a while. I'd be interested to get some feedback on this question, as I think self-delusion and self-deception are germane to any discussion of Everything theories, and this is also why it is the domain of so many cranks. It's lucky Edgar isn't open to revising his opinion, because he might come to believe Terry Pratchett's suggestion that everyone gets what they expect to get when they die. I imagine it would rile him that he'd cease to exist while pious Christians go to Heaven, buddhists are reincarnated, Vikings go to Valhalla, and most of the people on the everything list are confronted with a multiple choice menu... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of questions versus answers: http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:19:39 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: This, after he has already agreed that he would say yes to the doctor. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go at the other person's perceived motivations? To believe otherwise may be comforting and may be superstition, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. You should study logical forms sometime. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. If I thought for a moment you could back that up with any reasoned argument, I would ask you to provide 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
A good answer is one that doesn't spoil the question. --- P. T. Barnum On 1/15/2014 1:27 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of questions versus answers: http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Yeah, the human craving for transcendence. -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 1:20 pm Subject: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp Hey everyone, I'm starting a new topic here so as not to derail any conversations on other threads -- the original thread I am commenting on seems to have some interesting stuff about computer simulations etc. and I don't want to bother others about it. Edgar has repeatedly posted links to both his business and personal website, and his life companion request is there right on the front page, so I'm not sure how that constitutes snooping. For Edgar, if it is true that you did lose your wife to cancer recently, I am very sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer when I was young, and I lost a close friend last Christmas to cancer as well, so I know how that feels. Just digging down to nuts and bolts for a second, though, for those members on the list that subscribe to some version of Everything Theory, (Bruno's UD, various forms of computer simulation universe, Craig's multisense realism), I'd like to ask a serious and honest question in good faith: what is the place of grief and mourning given belief in one of these theories? Is it even appropriate to grieve in a universe where Everything exists and the self is simply a computation on a deeper eternal substrate and where time is an illusion? Indeed, isn't the whole humanistic, existentialist point of these theories to offer us a bit of succor in the face of inevitable death? That is why I am interested in this stuff -- not simply for the intellectual fun and games of it all, but because I am truly terrified of oblivion and of losing everything I love to that oblivion, and yet everything in my observed world tells me that when we die, we are basically broken machines and our world completely and permanently disappears for us. That is why I desperately want to be convinced of any of the Everything theories that are discussed here, although I admit that the degree to which any of them offer any comfort at all is relative to how one is able to interpret the consequences of such theories to find a place for your personality in the Everything. I didn't think pasting quite publicly available text from Edgar's website constitutes a personal attack. Edgar seems quite happy to keep that information up on the web for anyone to see, so I hardly think it constitutes snooping to cite it in a different forum. And my original observation that I could understand why he was alone was motivated by his continued truculence and seeming inability to incorporate and respond to the many pieces of feedback he had been given about his theory... I wouldn't want to be around somebody in real life who demonstrated such regular and fatuous disregard for what I was saying. So, just to sum up, I apologize, Edgar, for any pain that my copying and pasting of the text on your website caused you, and I apologize for suggesting that the reason you are alone is because you are probably a difficult person to live with in real life. I don't know anything about you in real life (aside from what you've put on your website, assuming it is all true), and I realize that this forum is not the place to engage in personal attacks. I'll be more thoughtful in the future. Best regards, Dan Menon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own heart and ask yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own character… one that if I were you I would be trying to understand and work through. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of freqflyer07281972 Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:26 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: 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://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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 16 January 2014 05:57, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while being attacked by someone using a pseudonym. I have nothing against pseudonyms and I use them too, but I don't think it's fair play to do the sort of thing freqflyer did while using one. I disagree that Edgar is never the one initiating personal attacks. I doubt if anyone would have retaliated in kind if he hadn't constantly been making derogatory remarks about everyone who disagrees with him. I've observed many heated arguments on this list and others in which the participants, while obviously passionately believing their views to be right and their opponents to be a crock, nevertheless manage to preserve politeness. Generally people also try to put their ideas across clearly, trying different tacks if one is clearly not getting across. They geneally respect the other person's viewpoint and make a serious effort to understand it - and occasionally even realise that they are wrong and the other person is right (I've even done it myself...) We have had none of the above courtesies from Edgar. His explanations are woolly and one note, with no attempt at re-presenting them with, say, mathematical models or meaningful analogies. He is constantly insinuating that people who disagree must be stupid, and sometimes saying it outright. He clearly doesn't get the problems others (from Einstein onwards) have perceived with his universal time idea, and furthermore makes no effort to do so. He is constantly patronising, smug and up himself. I would almost say he has adopted the bad points of Isaac Newton while ignoring the good ones (kind of in a similar vein to the reasoning they laughed at Galileo and Einstein, and they're laughing at me, so I must be a genius too!) I don't know about the name-vs-pseudonym business. I wouldn't have posted Edgar's lonely hearts thing myself (well, I hope I wouldn't!) but I can see why someone would be tempted to do so. Edgar has spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid and was in the process of nitpicking FF about a thought experiment, rather than answering the question honestly, and that evasiveness and refusal to answer honest questions coupled with his usual smugness was no doubt very irritating. (Also, if FF has encounted EO on other forums, as seems to be the case, there may be some history we're unaware of.) But none of that excuses posting personal details, I agree. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Snarkiness is also popular amongst the physicists in the world, for its how they intimidate each other into submission. If you can't prove a point, use ridicule (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #4). -Original Message- From: freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 2:52 pm Subject: Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp So, just to run with this for a few moments (which will be lost in time, like tears in rain... ;-) ... if it is obvious to Edgar that everything he says is true, for example the claim that: When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. ... but many other (highly educated, scientific, philosophical) human beings disagree that it is obvious and/or can't see what is plainly apparent to only one of them, what should that single person who has (by some miracle of the universe) been given privileged access to the unvarnished truth of the universe do about it? Should they: a) call people who disagree with them too stupid to get it b) revise their beliefs concerning the obvious nature of the truth they think they possess c) suspect on the basis of the responses they are getting from otherwise intelligent people that perhaps their unique insight is in error d) ignore all claims to the contrary and persist in their beliefs e) patiently re-explain, in a different way, using different analogies, the substance of their claim and f) be willing to revise their beliefs on the basis of what others tell them, assuming they do not have an overexaggerated confidence in their own ability to discern the truth These are not mutually exclusive options. It seems to me Edgar has done a lot of option a and option d -- e has not been used because no analogies, thought experiments, or formal apparatus has been offered for honest inspection- merely a series of re-assertions that it is quite obvious that X, and I don't understand why no one else gets it -- the rest of the options are also not evident. I'd be interested to get some feedback on this question, as I think self-delusion and self-deception are germane to any discussion of Everything theories, and this is also why it is the domain of so many cranks. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:32:28 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014/1/15 freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.com On what authority do you make such claims? Isn't it obvious ? His own, it is so obviously obvious, it's a shame^Wjoke you didn't obviously register so obvious. Quentin On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:14:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:03:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: I have to agree I don't think Edgar posted any links to his business or blog. Indeed if he had posted links to a blog on his theory I would certainly have looked because the explanations here have been less than clear. I haven't criticise Edgar for a lack of immediate response once, never mind on several occasions. I have criticised his lack of any response to my questions when he's replied to other things but obviously can't or won't answer me. (I am still thinking of starting a thread on outstanding questions to Edgar, but tbh I can't be bothered because I know it won't get me or any of us anywhere.) On the subject of grief, I have wondered about that too. One reason is that I don't know that, say, QTI is correct. But I think the main one is that I personally have lost that person forever. My best friend was murdered in 1995, for example, and that is someone I will never see again. Likewise my father, who died over 10 years ago now. If they're still alive and well somewhere in the multiverse that's a bit of a comfort but I don't know that. Maybe I will realise it eventually, when I'm 150 say... -- You received this message because you are 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. -- 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
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 16 January 2014 08:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I am not sure whether or not the word is defined differently or more clearly in New Zealand, but there is definitely no clear meaning for the term in the states, and here only about 1/3 of women polled described themselves as feminist. OK, I admit that was a slight over-reaction. I don't really think he should be shot - but I do think this is a significant point, and that anyone who asks for a non-feminist should at the very least be treated with great caution by anyone who may be interested. The point isn't to do with the fact that only 1/3 of US women describe themselves as feminists. I don't actually describe myself as one, because I think the feminist movement has made sufficient headway in the Western world that most people nowadays have opinions that would have been described as feminist 50 years ago. So most people are feminists, to some extent, even men (yes I know they're only pretending because that's the way to get laid, don't distract me...) No, seriously, lots of things are now accepted - equal opportunities, equal pay (almost), maternity leave etc - whether this is good for society, I'm not 100% sure, but anyway that's a discussion for a different thread. Hence, when I use the term feminist I mean a more hardline feminist, and as such I generally think of an ideology that includes some things I disagree with, like the idea that gender roles are purely cultural constructs. Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a non-feminist must be wanting someone who will accept a female role from long ago and far away - they're looking for someone docile and obedient, with non-threatening hair. This specific usage speaks to me of a control freak. Now, personally I am happy to *play* at being submissive and suchlike, but only within an equal relationship, and I am not 100% happy that anyone should apparently want that to be the defining dynamic of their relationship. (THAT said, I'm happy to fantasise about being the woman in Secretary ...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 16 January 2014 08:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately. So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation. The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong). But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite. That was my objection too. Maybe the point is that the time he will take is proportional to the size? If you simulate the Hubble sphere, a simulated person won't find out for maybe 100 billion years. But can't the sim just be set up to always generate the person's surroundings, like in the Heinlein story about the guy who thinks he's paranoid? Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite would imply comp is wrong. In a finite world it seems it would be even easier to be sure of saying yes to the doctor. I think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it means that an artificial brain is possible other times it means that plus the whole UDA. I think - vaguely! - that this has something to do with the integers being infinite. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
On 16 January 2014 10:27, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote: I have a funny comic I think all of you will appreciate to one extent or another. I'm also curious as to your reaction regarding the status of questions versus answers: http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park Very nice. FWIW I think questions are the driving force of most of human existence, not to mention novel writing, while answers are dangerous and should be treated with caution, because many are usatisfying and a lot of them are just ways to stop people thinking. However, a good answer is very nice to have, just now and then, and can be easily recognised because they invariably create more questions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Brent, You asked me how I explained the spin entanglement paradox day before yesterday and I referred you to my detailed answer at the the initial post of the Another shot at how spacetime arises from quantum reality topic. Again I refer you to the same initial post in that topic for the explanation. It explains the origin of quantum randomness in fair detail. Let me know if you read it and we can discuss it Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:18:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/15/2014 4:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer program. It's always able to compute its next computation. Same with the 'program' that computes reality. It is always able to compute the next state of the universe. If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a universe but there is. Therefore Godel does NOT apply to the running program of reality just as it does NOT apply to all the computer programs running all over the world right now. Therefore the actual logico-mathematical system that continually computes reality MUST BE logically self-consistent and logically complete. So where does the randomness of QM come from? 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: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp
Liz, Wow, do we have some really superstitious members here! I wouldn't have expected that on a science list. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:14:24 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 16 January 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, (and Dan) When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be comforting, but it's just superstition.. Can't you make *any *argument using logic, rather than just having a go at the other person's perceived motivations? To believe otherwise may be comforting and may be superstition, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. You should study logical forms sometime. There must be a living human body to produce a human consciousness. If I thought for a moment you could back that up with any reasoned argument, I would ask you to provide 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified block time is false. SR doesn't require a moving arrow of time, and the present moment is only defined for a given location in space-time. 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without giving any reasons why not. Since your point 1 is false, you couldn't have asked any meaningful questions. 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were unable to provide. In SR it's a continuum. Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not tenable and which of course you are not responsible for As far as I know, the idea of block time was proposed by Newton (I think he called it the sensorium of God, or something like that) and was later used by Laplace, Einstein and Minkowski. Since your point 1 is false, you failed to falsify block time. If you *can*show that SR requires a moving arrow of time, or whatever, then SR may invalidate block time, but it hasn't yet. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Thanks Chris, much appreciated! Best, Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own heart and ask yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own character… one that if I were you I would be trying to understand and work through. Chris *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of * freqflyer07281972 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:26 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* 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 edga...@att.net javascript:. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 16 January 2014 07:54, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Quentin, If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain what is wrong with that argument specifically? SR doesn't require a present moment or a moving arrow of time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
