Re: Modal Logic (Part 2: From Leibniz to Kripke)
On 29 January 2014 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Ah? I read his book on GR. It is a bit old but still pleasant. Not sure that our minds crawl up our worldlines is wrong for block universe. Maybe you can elaborate a little bit. It creates the wrong image for people who don't understand block time. They see it as the block universe sitting there, eternal and static, with our minds moving through it. But in what time could they be said to move? It can only be another time outside the one that is already embedded within the BU. The time we experience is (according to GR) a dimension in the 4D manifold. Seen from outside (which is impossible in practice, but we can draw diagrams of course), we are world tubes through a 4D space-time. From this perspective nothing is moving, and certainly not crawling along world-lines. One can see this by asking at what speed does something move along the time dimension? Maybe one year per year? But that gives a dimensionless result. Something's wrong! I will have to come back on the rest of your post... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Teleportation - a small engineering hurdle
http://io9.com/physicists-say-energy-can-be-teleported-without-a-limi-1511624230?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebookutm_source=io9_facebookutm_medium=socialflow Interesting how this pop article broaches the notion of a 'substitution level', as well as the amount of data required to beam anyone up, Scotty Someone will - one day Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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
Meanwhile - back at the ranch: Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, I'm afraid... https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/5e7ed624986d Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote: On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote: On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists? To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying Now we have the answer to the fundamental question, which is just a crackpot kind of statement. That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you taken up mind reading, Bruno? If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter. What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the world. And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively, But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only by the dream argument. I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but that instruments, apparatus, measurement results were. You remind me Bohr, when defining an atom by the set of classical devices capable of measuring it. Instruments are fundamentally important, but useless as primitive. physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done. So you are factually wrong assuming matter is some blinding constraint on physics. Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that idea. the success of aristotle is related to that. The reason FPI is ignored by most scientists is that most scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere. Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable. To say I don't believe in God is quite clear to all those people who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are answered. This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc. When Mach said, I don't believe in atoms. did it imply he knew what was fundamental? That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a theory. It is a concept. Tell it to the bible thumpers. I am not sure we can change their mind, they won't listen. Irrationalism is, alas, most of the time, immune to reason. Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is still a taboo subject. Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God. I don't defend it; I accept that they know what their own words mean when they explain it to me - and I find the concept they have explained and named God unbelievable. It is part of the original definition, note. You seem to want to tell them that when they say God they don't mean what they think they mean and instead they must mean what you want the word to mean. I ask nothing to them, or anyone for that matter. But usually intellectual christians are aware of the contribution of Plato and Aristotle in theology, and are interested in the fact that hypothetical reasoning (in comp for example) can give new light on them and on the difference between them. Of course they don't believe in fairy tales. There is no use to convince people who believe or pretend to believe in fairy tales. In fact, there is no way to use reason for people who does not want to use reason, but based their intimate conviction on authoritative arguments. But if seriousness in theology come back, then the fairy tales will disappear by themselves, in one or two millennia. If we continue to mock the theological question and the use of the scientific attitude to address them, people will continue the wishful thinking, and will continue to believe or fake belief in the fairy tales and literal interpretations of texts. Bruno For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to others. Show one. To say that I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God can be said by an agnostic. But when said with the meaning that God has no referent, it means either I disbelieve in fairy tales which is trivial or it means I believe in the modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false problem (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no answer. In fact those
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:50, meekerdb wrote: On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote: On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being or beyond being entity. If I show it is empirically false that Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of god, will you stop using God and switch to goar? See my papers: I do not use the word God. I use it in this list, because I answered post using it. It's my recollection that you used it first (and also angels) it metaphorically describing the scope of unprovable truths in arithmetic - but it doesn't matter now. Ah! Good memory! Yes I presented my formal friends G and G* in that way. I called G* the guardian angel of the machines. It is a way to honor an argument by Judson Webb which shows the particular case of just Gödel's incompleteness theorem being the guardian angel of the Church thesis. Indeed you can look at Gödel's theorem as a confirmation of CT, as CT implies incompleteness rigorously in two informal lines. In the Plotinus paper I use the one. OK. Does that mean the same as the ground of all reality? Ground still looks a bit too much physicalist to me, and does not convey the fact that the personhood of it is an open question. If so, it seems a bit too specific in that assumes a singular. Which confirms my point. God's main attribute is its unicity. Plotinus' work can be sum up into how the ONE became MANY, and how the MANY can return to the ONE. Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and 0 might be the goar. This would be consistent with theologies much older than Plotinus: Zoroastrian's good and evil. Confucian yin and yang. I don't think that the Yin and Yang is confucian. The book of transformation is older, I think. To verify. And more recently Monod's necessity and chance. Yin and Yang are not fundamental with comp, but can be explained by the tension between Bp which is quite yin and Bp p, which is quite yang. We should not equivocate fundamentally important and primitive (= has to be assumed, up to some equivalence, in the theory). 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: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?
On 29 Jan 2014, at 22:28, Russell Standish wrote: As someone pointed out, it requires a non-standard definition of convergence, as these series are non-convergent according to the usual Cauchy definition. IIRC, it may be Abel summation? I remember Abel summation being mentioned during my elementary analysis course, but nobody seemed to understand what it was. Yes. It is Abel summation. Basically, for 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ..., Euler substituted x by 1 in the geometric identity series: 1/(1+x) = 1 - x + x^2 - x^3 + x^4 - ... That identity is easy to prove for IxI 1. It gives the Abel summation for x = 1. Euler *defined* its value for x = 1 by the left hand side. That definition can be generalized for all series being some Taylor series with coefficient smaller than 1. Bruno Cheers On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:11:13PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:56 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: OK... thanks, I should have guesses it was the zeta function :D Anyway, I showed this proof to my 15 year old son and he soon put me right on why 1-1+1-1+1-1+1... is indeed 1/2. call the series 1-1+1-1+1... S then 1-S = 1 - (1-1+1-1+1-1+1...) = 1-1+1-1+1-1... = S S=1-S, so S=1/2 (which is, I should think, another way of writing Bruno's proof, above, but maybe even simpler!) Actually that does look rigorous. I mean, assuming that infinite series exist and can be added up, etc, etc, that answer looks fairly watertight. What could possibly go wrong? I've noticed something (maybe silly, maybe trivial?). Let's say: S(0) = 1 = 1 S(1) = 1 - 1 = 0 S(2) = 1 - 1 + 1 = 1 S(3) = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 = 0 S(inf) = 1/2 So the summation oscillates between 0 and 1, and at the limit it's in the middle of these two values. Notices that for 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2... the summation oscillates between 0 and 2 and it's 1 at the limit, and so on. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, astrology and numerology. The all caps were in response to Bruno's all caps, No. I only quoted this. I think you wrote this (on the 25 january). (Not important. But I never use caps, except in figure, like in NUMBERS == MIND == PHYSICS, for example. If not it looks like we are angry!) Bruno and no, you don't need astrology and numerology to understand that rooms are not haunted by the spirits of system-hood. *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. So only things that have conscious experiences can be conscious. Thanks for the news flash. No, the other way around. Only conscious experiences exist, but we can be misled about what exists. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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.
The Big Bang Never Happened - Eric Lerner
All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar *Eric Lerner* *Big Bang Never Happened* http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ *Home Page and Summary* In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology. This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical reviewhttp://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm and a reply to a widely- circulated criticismhttp://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm as well as a technical reading listhttp://bigbangneverhappened.org/p15.htm, a report on a recent workshop http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p17.htm and links to other relevant sites http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p10.htm, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p23.htm. *What is the evidence against the Big Bang?* *Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities*The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion. *Large-scale Voids are too old*The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang. *Surface brightness is constant* One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects. In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.” *Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation *The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy. *No room for dark matter*While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter. *No Conservation of Energy*The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Ghibbsa, Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to the unequal Hubble expansion. It is precisely that gravity normal matter gradient that, in the presence of the Hubble expansion, that causes the dark matter space warping. So it's already taken into account in the theory Edgar On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:13:59 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:09:29 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me. I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter. In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories proposed in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that of John Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems Edgar Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of the rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively increases over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, but compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of decrease of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over increasing distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be to progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the source. As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the effect entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and because it progressively intensifies further from the source, and because that means the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail end (because the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, where the rate at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted beyond a certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that actually slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased rate of descrease after a point, is progressively exacberated by an increased bias for slowing the other side of the point given there is now less tension the other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the other side of the line. So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a shorter distance. All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser ordinary matter in the galaxy. It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly could be checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity solutions. It doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the conjecture part. 'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be protesting of that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the effort to understand so simple an idea. Second thoughts - don't botherit's not a good idea, nor something I personally believe in. I just remembered it thrown out in an earlier conversation. Just a little it was demonstration ideas at this sort of level are pretty easy to conjure up.because everything about them is so easy to vary (to borrow a good idea from Deutsch) By the way Edgar, one thing I was saying (before mentioning that old 'explanation' of mine) about your Dark Matter theory which I don't think you understood (my bad, I probably didn't say it clearly) was about the part of ordinary gravity in the picture. You've responded by saying we already know that ordinary gravity cannot explain Dark Matter. That's true, but I was talking about ordinary gravity, taking the supposition Dark Matter was being explained by your theory. So I definitely wasn't talking at that time about ordinary gravity as an alternative to your idea. What I was trying to point out, was that, if you take Dark Matter out of the picture, then what you still have are gravity gradients around galaxies, caused by ordinary gravity. That is, if you pull far enough away from a galaxy, at some scale you can regard a whole galaxy as approximately a single mass. And of course, around that mass there will be a gravity gradient. The question I was asking was whether your expansion in between galaxies, and the non-expansion within galaxies, would ever 'touch' in the first place given there would be
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Dear Ghibbsa, Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different clock times. OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment, but, as you note, we still need to prove there is a common universal p-time present moment. The argument that demonstrates that is simple, clear and convincing. 1. The twins share a common p-time present moment BEFORE one starts his trip. 2. The twins share a common p-time present moment AFTER they meet up again after the trip. 3. DURING the trip each twin is always continually in his own local p-time present moment. 4. Local p-time flows continuously for both twins DURING the trip from the time they part to the time they meet up again. There are no gaps in either Twin's p-times. 5. Therefore the other twin must ALWAYS be doing something in his p-time present moment at the same time the other twin is also doing something in his, because there is no time that each twin is not existing in their local present moment. And that must be a one to one relationship, that is there is always one and only one p-time present moment shared by the parted twins. 6. Therefore there must be a common universal p-time present moment in which every observer in the entire universe is currently doing something. We may or may not be able to compute or measure what clock times correspond to that shared common present moment but all observers will be doing something in that common present moment. Just because some observers are out there in various strong relativistic conditions doesn't mean they aren't actually doing something at every moment of their existence. Obviously they will always be doing something, no matter what their relativistic situation, and they will obviously always be doing it in their p-time present moment, which we have proved must have a one to one correspondence with the p-time present moment of all other observers, no matter what their clock times are. 7. This theory also allows us to have the necessary common background present moment in which and only in which different clock time differences can be compared by observers and relativity can work. The p-time present moment is an absolutely necessary background for relativity to function internal to. Without a common universal background present moment it would be impossible TO COMPARE relativistic clock time results. Where or when could different clock time results be compared if the different observers were actually IN (at) those different clock times. 8. It also provides the necessary mechanism for the universal processor cycles that drive all of computational reality, and in which relativity and clock times among every thing else is computed. The p-time present moment exists first, and all clock times are computed WITHIN IT. 9. Also in spite of what others here argue, SR itself requires there to be a common present moment because it says everything is traveling at the speed of light (actually the speed of time) in spacetime. For that to be true everything simply MUST BE at one and only one location in time, and that location is the common universal present moment of p-time. 10. The theory also provides a simple, elegant and consistent cosmological geometry in which the actual real extant universe is the SURFACE of a 4-dimensional hypersphere in which the surface is the 3-dimensions of space in the present moment, and the radial dimension back to the big bang is the radial p-time dimension. However the actual real universe is only the surface because the past radial dimension is the now NON-existent computational trace of the past which no longer exists. One could say the universe is the surface of a 4-dimensional soap bubble, and that our most fundamental experience of our lives, our existence in a common present moment is in fact the direct experience of the most fundamental phenomenon of the universe, namely the continual extension of the radial p-time dimension of our universe, in which the universe continually recomputes its current state of existence as that p-time extension provides the happening, the motive force in the form of processor cycles to do so. The p-time present moment theory results in a simple, convincing, beautiful, elegant TOE (only part of which I've explained) which is in solid accord with the most fundamental observation of our existence, that of a present moment in which we exist and in which all happening and reality occurs. The argument is clear, simple and convincing, and it is the ONLY theory consistent with the basic experience of our existence from birth to death, that of living in a present moment, that we now know is common and universal across the entire universe. This common present moment is the ONLY locus of reality in which everything that is real and actual exists. Only the common universal present moment
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Edgar, dark matter space warping as you call it is amenable to model mathematically. I think that is something we would all like to see. Richard. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Ghibbsa, Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to the unequal Hubble expansion. It is precisely that gravity normal matter gradient that, in the presence of the Hubble expansion, that causes the dark matter space warping. So it's already taken into account in the theory Edgar On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:13:59 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:09:29 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me. I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter. In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories proposed in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that of John Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems Edgar Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of the rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively increases over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, but compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of decrease of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over increasing distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be to progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the source. As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the effect entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and because it progressively intensifies further from the source, and because that means the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail end (because the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, where the rate at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted beyond a certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that actually slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased rate of descrease after a point, is progressively exacberated by an increased bias for slowing the other side of the point given there is now less tension the other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the other side of the line. So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a shorter distance. All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser ordinary matter in the galaxy. It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly could be checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity solutions. It doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the conjecture part. 'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be protesting of that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the effort to understand so simple an idea. Second thoughts - don't botherit's not a good idea, nor something I personally believe in. I just remembered it thrown out in an earlier conversation. Just a little it was demonstration ideas at this sort of level are pretty easy to conjure up.because everything about them is so easy to vary (to borrow a good idea from Deutsch) By the way Edgar, one thing I was saying (before mentioning that old 'explanation' of mine) about your Dark Matter theory which I don't think you understood (my bad, I probably didn't say it clearly) was about the part of ordinary gravity in the picture. You've responded by saying we already know that ordinary gravity cannot explain Dark Matter. That's true, but I was talking about ordinary gravity, taking the supposition Dark Matter was being explained by your theory. So I definitely wasn't talking at that time about ordinary gravity as an alternative to your idea. What I was trying to point out, was that, if you take Dark Matter out of the picture, then what you still have are gravity gradients around galaxies, caused by ordinary gravity. That is, if you pull far enough away from a galaxy, at some scale you can regard a whole galaxy as approximately a single mass. And of course, around that mass there will be a gravity gradient. The question I was asking was
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Edgar, Please specify the mathematical relationship between p-time and coordinate time. Richard On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Dear Ghibbsa, Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different clock times. OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment, but, as you note, we still need to prove there is a common universal p-time present moment. The argument that demonstrates that is simple, clear and convincing. 1. The twins share a common p-time present moment BEFORE one starts his trip. 2. The twins share a common p-time present moment AFTER they meet up again after the trip. 3. DURING the trip each twin is always continually in his own local p-time present moment. 4. Local p-time flows continuously for both twins DURING the trip from the time they part to the time they meet up again. There are no gaps in either Twin's p-times. 5. Therefore the other twin must ALWAYS be doing something in his p-time present moment at the same time the other twin is also doing something in his, because there is no time that each twin is not existing in their local present moment. And that must be a one to one relationship, that is there is always one and only one p-time present moment shared by the parted twins. 6. Therefore there must be a common universal p-time present moment in which every observer in the entire universe is currently doing something. We may or may not be able to compute or measure what clock times correspond to that shared common present moment but all observers will be doing something in that common present moment. Just because some observers are out there in various strong relativistic conditions doesn't mean they aren't actually doing something at every moment of their existence. Obviously they will always be doing something, no matter what their relativistic situation, and they will obviously always be doing it in their p-time present moment, which we have proved must have a one to one correspondence with the p-time present moment of all other observers, no matter what their clock times are. 7. This theory also allows us to have the necessary common background present moment in which and only in which different clock time differences can be compared by observers and relativity can work. The p-time present moment is an absolutely necessary background for relativity to function internal to. Without a common universal background present moment it would be impossible TO COMPARE relativistic clock time results. Where or when could different clock time results be compared if the different observers were actually IN (at) those different clock times. 8. It also provides the necessary mechanism for the universal processor cycles that drive all of computational reality, and in which relativity and clock times among every thing else is computed. The p-time present moment exists first, and all clock times are computed WITHIN IT. 9. Also in spite of what others here argue, SR itself requires there to be a common present moment because it says everything is traveling at the speed of light (actually the speed of time) in spacetime. For that to be true everything simply MUST BE at one and only one location in time, and that location is the common universal present moment of p-time. 10. The theory also provides a simple, elegant and consistent cosmological geometry in which the actual real extant universe is the SURFACE of a 4-dimensional hypersphere in which the surface is the 3-dimensions of space in the present moment, and the radial dimension back to the big bang is the radial p-time dimension. However the actual real universe is only the surface because the past radial dimension is the now NON-existent computational trace of the past which no longer exists. One could say the universe is the surface of a 4-dimensional soap bubble, and that our most fundamental experience of our lives, our existence in a common present moment is in fact the direct experience of the most fundamental phenomenon of the universe, namely the continual extension of the radial p-time dimension of our universe, in which the universe continually recomputes its current state of existence as that p-time extension provides the happening, the motive force in the form of processor cycles to do so. The p-time present moment theory results in a simple, convincing, beautiful, elegant TOE (only part of which I've explained) which is in solid accord with the most fundamental observation of our existence, that of a present moment in which we exist and in which all happening and reality occurs. The argument is clear, simple and convincing, and it is the ONLY theory consistent with the basic experience of our existence from birth to death, that of living in a present moment, that we now know is common and
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Ghibbsa, PS: And note that we actually visually confirm the present moment of p-time cosmological geometry because we actually DO SEE all 4-dimensions of our universe all the time. We actually see the 3 dimensions of space as 3 orthogonal dimensions in the present moment of p-time, and then we see the past trace of the 4th radial time dimension in all directions from every point in that space. Our light cone is our particular visual slice through our 4-dimensional universe and simply by looking at it we confirm its 4-dimensional structure. We continually see all 4-dimensions all the time And we continually see change in this structure as clock time flows at different relativistic rates in different locations through the 4-dimensional universe as its current state is continually re-computed by the passage of p-time. This passage of p-time through the present moment (actually the present moment is just the continually next moment of p-time) is what gives life to our universe, because it provides the happening that generates the processor cycles that drive the continual re-computation of the state of the universe. Thus the universe can be considered a LIVING ENTITY because it is self motivated in the sense that it generates its own motive force internally. There is no external motivating force for the universe because there is nothing outside it. Thus the universe is a living entity... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:35:49 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Dear Ghibbsa, Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different clock times. OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment, but, as you note, we still need to prove there is a common universal p-time present moment. The argument that demonstrates that is simple, clear and convincing. 1. The twins share a common p-time present moment BEFORE one starts his trip. 2. The twins share a common p-time present moment AFTER they meet up again after the trip. 3. DURING the trip each twin is always continually in his own local p-time present moment. 4. Local p-time flows continuously for both twins DURING the trip from the time they part to the time they meet up again. There are no gaps in either Twin's p-times. 5. Therefore the other twin must ALWAYS be doing something in his p-time present moment at the same time the other twin is also doing something in his, because there is no time that each twin is not existing in their local present moment. And that must be a one to one relationship, that is there is always one and only one p-time present moment shared by the parted twins. 6. Therefore there must be a common universal p-time present moment in which every observer in the entire universe is currently doing something. We may or may not be able to compute or measure what clock times correspond to that shared common present moment but all observers will be doing something in that common present moment. Just because some observers are out there in various strong relativistic conditions doesn't mean they aren't actually doing something at every moment of their existence. Obviously they will always be doing something, no matter what their relativistic situation, and they will obviously always be doing it in their p-time present moment, which we have proved must have a one to one correspondence with the p-time present moment of all other observers, no matter what their clock times are. 7. This theory also allows us to have the necessary common background present moment in which and only in which different clock time differences can be compared by observers and relativity can work. The p-time present moment is an absolutely necessary background for relativity to function internal to. Without a common universal background present moment it would be impossible TO COMPARE relativistic clock time results. Where or when could different clock time results be compared if the different observers were actually IN (at) those different clock times. 8. It also provides the necessary mechanism for the universal processor cycles that drive all of computational reality, and in which relativity and clock times among every thing else is computed. The p-time present moment exists first, and all clock times are computed WITHIN IT. 9. Also in spite of what others here argue, SR itself requires there to be a common present moment because it says everything is traveling at the speed of light (actually the speed of time) in spacetime. For that to be true everything simply MUST BE at one and only one location in time, and that location is the common universal present moment of p-time. 10. The theory also provides a simple, elegant and consistent cosmological geometry in which the actual real extant universe is the SURFACE of a 4-dimensional
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Richard, Yes it is and I'd like to see it also but I don't have access to the astronomical data to do it myself. I'd love to have someone with the necessary background take a shot at it, but unless they somehow hear about the theory I don't see how would happen... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:48:20 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Edgar, dark matter space warping as you call it is amenable to model mathematically. I think that is something we would all like to see. Richard. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Ghibbsa, Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to the unequal Hubble expansion. It is precisely that gravity normal matter gradient that, in the presence of the Hubble expansion, that causes the dark matter space warping. So it's already taken into account in the theory Edgar On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:13:59 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:09:29 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me. I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter. In any case there are a number of alternate gravitation theories proposed in which the force of gravity varies with conditions such as that of John Moffat and others. So far as I know these all have problems Edgar Perhaps I could state it more simply as an infinitesimal slowing of the rate gravity reduces with increasing distance, that progressively increases over increasing distances. Insignificant for a single particle, but compounded for increasing mass. Because the bias slows the rate of decrease of gravity with distance AND progressively intensifies over increasing distances from the source of the gravity, the effect would be to progressively load the deficit at the tail end gravity furthest from the source. As this effect intensifies, the bias nearer the source loses the effect entirely. But because the original slight bias does exist, and because it progressively intensifies further from the source, and because that means the deficit is progressively pushed further toward the tail end (because the bias intensifies further out), there will come a point, where the rate at which gravity lessens is increasing faster than predicted beyond a certain line. And because the thesis is for a slight bias that actually slows the rate down, the fact this corresponds to an increased rate of descrease after a point, is progressively exacberated by an increased bias for slowing the other side of the point given there is now less tension the other way due to gravity falling away more steeply the other side of the line. So the progressive effect would be that gravity levels off more than predicted right out at the edge of the galaxy, and what had been a smooth decrease in its effect, transforms into a steepening gradient over a shorter distance. All which would create not only the dark matter effect, but also the observed symmetries of the effect, in relation to the clumps of denser ordinary matter in the galaxy. It depends on one tiny effect. It makes predictions that feasibly could be checked. It doesn't have the problems of the other gravity solutions. It doesn't need a 'cause' for the bias, because that's the conjecture part. 'course speculative, but you're rather a cheeky bugger to be protesting of that :o) I think you should at least be willing to make the effort to understand so simple an idea. Second thoughts - don't botherit's not a good idea, nor something I personally believe in. I just remembered it thrown out in an earlier conversation. Just a little it was demonstration ideas at this sort of level are pretty easy to conjure up.because everything about them is so easy to vary (to borrow a good idea from Deutsch) By the way Edgar, one thing I was saying (before mentioning that old 'explanation' of mine) about your Dark Matter theory which I don't think you understood (my bad, I probably didn't say it clearly) was about the part of ordinary gravity in the picture. You've responded by saying we already know that ordinary gravity cannot explain Dark Matter. That's true, but I was talking about ordinary gravity, taking the supposition Dark Matter was being explained by your theory. So I definitely wasn't talking at that time about ordinary
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 January 2014 05:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. Well, this is the part I've been struggling for years to understand. However I think I may be starting at least to see the shape of a possible solution and I'm not sure that it's precisely what you say above. As well as I can articulate it (which isn't saying much), causation in comp seems to come from more than one direction. There is the trace of the UD, which instantiates (platonically speaking) all possible computations and hence constitutes a foundation (or cause) for any and all possibilities whatsoever. Embedded within this is an infinity of self-referential machines whose shared indexical beliefs effectively compete and collaborate to filter out a self-consistent, 1p-plural physics from this computational background. Of course, there is a lot of hand-waving going on here; showing precisely by what measure normal indexical computations succeed in outnumbering pathological competitors seems to be a major open problem with any such view. But if we grant at least the possibility, then - unlike Borges's endlessly useless stacks of books - what we have is a Library of Programmatic Babel where self-consistent entities effectively *find themselves* in the context of a self-selected consistent physics. There is a sort of multiple-causation in play here, in terms of which it doesn't perhaps make much sense to think of either the physics or the beliefs as epiphenomena of the other. Were this the limit of the scope of the theory, however, the dreaded Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement would still rear its ugly head. The most we might appear to lay claim to, up to this point, is a bunch of logical self-references instantiated in arithmetic. Even were we able to interpret these references as having something to do with consciousness, this needn't necessarily amount to consciousness itself nor would is it obvious that extrinsically-defined computational beliefs could possibly have access to (and hence truly refer to) any such intrinsic dual. This is where we seem to need a gap to open up that we aren't willing (or able) to grant in the physical account. And the gap that offers itself (following Bruno) is that between the assertion of an arithmetical belief and its truth. To put it shortly, if a computational machine asserts an indexical belief of the incorrigible type that distinguishes, we are to understand, unshareable from shareable beliefs, then either that belief is true (i.e. truly refers) or it fails to refer. But if this be the case, then - if we are indeed machines in this sense - we are forced to the conclusion that either our own beliefs and assertions of this type truly refer, or that we too fail to refer (i.e. we are zombies). Since this latter conclusion must seem to us to be untenable, we may conclude that, for machines at least, unshareable (conscious) phenomena and arithmetical truth are co-terminous. So the POPJ would seem to be effectively side-stepped because extrinsic beliefs, defined in this particular way, turn out in fact to be capable of referring truly to an intrinsic dual (i.e. the inside view of arithmetical truth). This strikes me as a neat trick. Bruno sometimes poetically describes the comp view as conceiving life, the universe and everything as a sort of multi-player video game, in which an infinity of indexical filtrations compete and collaborate (through the FPI) to resolve what the game physics will be turn out to be from the point-of-view of the players. If so, it would seem to encapsulate one of those virtuous circles that you talk about. Each level contributes something not fully present in the others and it isn't quite right to say that there is a bottom turtle that is the ultimate cause of everything else; hence nothing is truly epiphenomenal. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Richard, I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions. There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe. P-time is prior to measure because it is the presence of the logical space in which mathematical relationships are computed. There are plenty of things that don't have mathematical relationships that are VERY real. Consciousness is another example. Feynman was wrong! But everything is logical because it reality must be logical to be computed... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:50:40 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Edgar, Please specify the mathematical relationship between p-time and coordinate time. Richard On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Dear Ghibbsa, Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different clock times. OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment, but, as you note, we still need to prove there is a common universal p-time present moment. The argument that demonstrates that is simple, clear and convincing. 1. The twins share a common p-time present moment BEFORE one starts his trip. 2. The twins share a common p-time present moment AFTER they meet up again after the trip. 3. DURING the trip each twin is always continually in his own local p-time present moment. 4. Local p-time flows continuously for both twins DURING the trip from the time they part to the time they meet up again. There are no gaps in either Twin's p-times. 5. Therefore the other twin must ALWAYS be doing something in his p-time present moment at the same time the other twin is also doing something in his, because there is no time that each twin is not existing in their local present moment. And that must be a one to one relationship, that is there is always one and only one p-time present moment shared by the parted twins. 6. Therefore there must be a common universal p-time present moment in which every observer in the entire universe is currently doing something. We may or may not be able to compute or measure what clock times correspond to that shared common present moment but all observers will be doing something in that common present moment. Just because some observers are out there in various strong relativistic conditions doesn't mean they aren't actually doing something at every moment of their existence. Obviously they will always be doing something, no matter what their relativistic situation, and they will obviously always be doing it in their p-time present moment, which we have proved must have a one to one correspondence with the p-time present moment of all other observers, no matter what their clock times are. 7. This theory also allows us to have the necessary common background present moment in which and only in which different clock time differences can be compared by observers and relativity can work. The p-time present moment is an absolutely necessary background for relativity to function internal to. Without a common universal background present moment it would be impossible TO COMPARE relativistic clock time results. Where or when could different clock time results be compared if the different observers were actually IN (at) those different clock times. 8. It also provides the necessary mechanism for the universal processor cycles that drive all of computational reality, and in which relativity and clock times among every thing else is computed. The p-time present moment exists first, and all clock times are computed WITHIN IT. 9. Also in spite of what others here argue, SR itself requires there to be a common present moment because it says everything is traveling at the speed of light (actually the speed of time) in spacetime. For that to be true everything simply MUST BE at one and only one location in time, and that location is the common universal present moment of p-time. 10. The theory also provides a simple, elegant and consistent cosmological geometry in which the actual real extant universe is the SURFACE of a 4-dimensional hypersphere in which the surface is the 3-dimensions of space in the present moment, and the radial dimension back to the big bang is the radial p-time dimension. However the actual real universe is only the surface because the past radial dimension is the now NON-existent computational trace of the past which no longer exists. One could say the universe is the surface of a 4-dimensional soap bubble, and that our most fundamental experience of our lives, our existence in a common present moment is in fact the direct experience of the most fundamental phenomenon of the universe, namely the continual extension of the radial p-time
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
David, Bruno's 'comp' has 2 intractable fundamental problems that I see. 1. There is absolutely no way for a static arithmetical Plantonia to generate any happening whatsoever. Bruno's theory that all happening is a 1p perspective of human observers implies nothing happened in the entire history of the universe until some human observer became conscious. Total nonsense. 2. Perhaps even worse there is absolutely no way for pure arithmetic to generate the ACTUAL computational state of the observable universe. How does the actual particular Fine Tuning of our universe arise from pure arithmetic? Especially if it just sits there in some pure static Platonic state? It just doesn't! It can't In my view the whole UD can be as logically consistent as it wants to be but still has no connection with the actual observable reality of our universe... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:03:01 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 05:00, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. Well, this is the part I've been struggling for years to understand. However I think I may be starting at least to see the shape of a possible solution and I'm not sure that it's precisely what you say above. As well as I can articulate it (which isn't saying much), causation in comp seems to come from more than one direction. There is the trace of the UD, which instantiates (platonically speaking) all possible computations and hence constitutes a foundation (or cause) for any and all possibilities whatsoever. Embedded within this is an infinity of self-referential machines whose shared indexical beliefs effectively compete and collaborate to filter out a self-consistent, 1p-plural physics from this computational background. Of course, there is a lot of hand-waving going on here; showing precisely by what measure normal indexical computations succeed in outnumbering pathological competitors seems to be a major open problem with any such view. But if we grant at least the possibility, then - unlike Borges's endlessly useless stacks of books - what we have is a Library of Programmatic Babel where self-consistent entities effectively *find themselves* in the context of a self-selected consistent physics. There is a sort of multiple-causation in play here, in terms of which it doesn't perhaps make much sense to think of either the physics or the beliefs as epiphenomena of the other. Were this the limit of the scope of the theory, however, the dreaded Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement would still rear its ugly head. The most we might appear to lay claim to, up to this point, is a bunch of logical self-references instantiated in arithmetic. Even were we able to interpret these references as having something to do with consciousness, this needn't necessarily amount to consciousness itself nor would is it obvious that extrinsically-defined computational beliefs could possibly have access to (and hence truly refer to) any such intrinsic dual. This is where we seem to need a gap to open up that we aren't willing (or able) to grant in the physical account. And the gap that offers itself (following Bruno) is that between the assertion of an arithmetical belief and its truth. To put it shortly, if a computational machine asserts an indexical belief of the incorrigible type that distinguishes, we are to understand, unshareable from shareable beliefs, then either that belief is true (i.e. truly refers) or it fails to refer. But if this be the case, then - if we are indeed machines in this sense - we are forced to the conclusion that either our own beliefs and assertions of this type truly refer, or that we too fail to refer (i.e. we are zombies). Since this latter conclusion must seem to us to be untenable, we may conclude that, for machines at least, unshareable (conscious) phenomena and arithmetical truth are co-terminous. So the POPJ would seem to be effectively side-stepped because extrinsic beliefs, defined in this particular way, turn out in fact to be capable of referring truly to an intrinsic dual (i.e. the inside view of arithmetical truth). This strikes me as a neat trick. Bruno sometimes poetically describes the comp view as conceiving life, the universe and everything as a sort of multi-player video game, in which an infinity of indexical filtrations compete and collaborate (through the FPI) to resolve what the game physics will be turn out to be from the
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including, crucially, the articulation of our very thoughts and beliefs about conscious phenomena - can at least in principle be exhausted by an extrinsic account. But if this be so, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such extrinsic behaviours could possibly make reference to any intrinsic remainder, even were its existence granted. It isn't merely that any postulated remainder would be redundant in the explanation of such behaviour, but that it is hardly possible to see how an inner dual could even be accessible in principle to a complete (i.e. causally closed) extrinsic system of reference in the first place. Right, because the extrinsic perspective is blind to the limits of causal closure. But I'm afraid the problem is precisely that it behaves as if it is NOT in fact blind to such limits. As Bruno points out in a recent response to John Clark, if we rely on the causal closure of the extrinsic account (and which of us does not?) then we commit ourselves to the view that there must be such an account, at some level, of any behaviour to which we might otherwise wish to impute a conscious origin. However, my point above is that the problem is in fact even worse than this. In fact, it amounts to a paradox. The existence of a causally closed extrinsic account forces us to the view that the very thoughts and utterances - even our own - that purport to refer to irreducibly conscious phenomena must also be fully explicable extrinsically. But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! I take no credit for being the originator of this insight, But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an epiphenomenon. If you start looking for consciousness being an extra thing with (perhaps) its own separate causal efficacy, that's where problems arise. Then you would still have the problem of why there are epiphenomema. They are already an extra thing with no functional explanation. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
Mentioning comp poetry, if we are just conscious mathematical creatures and mathematics has existed long before us, perhaps other conscious math creatures have also existed long before us as Bruno describes. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:03 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 30 January 2014 05:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. Well, this is the part I've been struggling for years to understand. However I think I may be starting at least to see the shape of a possible solution and I'm not sure that it's precisely what you say above. As well as I can articulate it (which isn't saying much), causation in comp seems to come from more than one direction. There is the trace of the UD, which instantiates (platonically speaking) all possible computations and hence constitutes a foundation (or cause) for any and all possibilities whatsoever. Embedded within this is an infinity of self-referential machines whose shared indexical beliefs effectively compete and collaborate to filter out a self-consistent, 1p-plural physics from this computational background. Of course, there is a lot of hand-waving going on here; showing precisely by what measure normal indexical computations succeed in outnumbering pathological competitors seems to be a major open problem with any such view. But if we grant at least the possibility, then - unlike Borges's endlessly useless stacks of books - what we have is a Library of Programmatic Babel where self-consistent entities effectively *find themselves* in the context of a self-selected consistent physics. There is a sort of multiple-causation in play here, in terms of which it doesn't perhaps make much sense to think of either the physics or the beliefs as epiphenomena of the other. Were this the limit of the scope of the theory, however, the dreaded Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement would still rear its ugly head. The most we might appear to lay claim to, up to this point, is a bunch of logical self-references instantiated in arithmetic. Even were we able to interpret these references as having something to do with consciousness, this needn't necessarily amount to consciousness itself nor would is it obvious that extrinsically-defined computational beliefs could possibly have access to (and hence truly refer to) any such intrinsic dual. This is where we seem to need a gap to open up that we aren't willing (or able) to grant in the physical account. And the gap that offers itself (following Bruno) is that between the assertion of an arithmetical belief and its truth. To put it shortly, if a computational machine asserts an indexical belief of the incorrigible type that distinguishes, we are to understand, unshareable from shareable beliefs, then either that belief is true (i.e. truly refers) or it fails to refer. But if this be the case, then - if we are indeed machines in this sense - we are forced to the conclusion that either our own beliefs and assertions of this type truly refer, or that we too fail to refer (i.e. we are zombies). Since this latter conclusion must seem to us to be untenable, we may conclude that, for machines at least, unshareable (conscious) phenomena and arithmetical truth are co-terminous. So the POPJ would seem to be effectively side-stepped because extrinsic beliefs, defined in this particular way, turn out in fact to be capable of referring truly to an intrinsic dual (i.e. the inside view of arithmetical truth). This strikes me as a neat trick. Bruno sometimes poetically describes the comp view as conceiving life, the universe and everything as a sort of multi-player video game, in which an infinity of indexical filtrations compete and collaborate (through the FPI) to resolve what the game physics will be turn out to be from the point-of-view of the players. If so, it would seem to encapsulate one of those virtuous circles that you talk about. Each level contributes something not fully present in the others and it isn't quite right to say that there is a bottom turtle that is the ultimate cause of everything else; hence nothing is truly epiphenomenal. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For
Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?
On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:07, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach them this stuff. I remember someone once showed me the definition of continuity in year 11 (with all the upside down As and back to frount Es), and it nearly did my head in. Of course, that is part and parcel of the 2nd year introduction to analysis course :). My son (15) is rather keen on summing infinite series now, after I showed him the -1/12 demonstration. I am wondering whether to introduce him to modal logic and the other things Bruno is trying to teach me (then he can do the exercises :) Why not? Teaching math is the best way to learn math. *you* will learn, not just your son. But logic, the branch of math, is the most difficult branch of math, in the beginning. In my opinion. Even that remark is not obvious. Attempting to explain could add confusion. To do logic you have to abstract from your understanding. You have to understand what you have to not understand. You have to understand that We say that '(A B) is true if 'A is true and 'B is true is no more circular than the output of an and gate will be on if its two inputs are on. For a simple example. Logic might be a bit abstract for a kid, but as Smullyan illustrates it can also be fun. It is also a question of taste, and then logic appears as wide its taste spectrum, like most branch of math. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:26:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 30 January 2014 13:30, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: What's wrong with the way a cadaver functions? Many changes occur after death, the end result of which is that in a cadaver, the parts are in the wrong configuration and therefore don't work together as they do in a living person. Wrong for whom? They are in a better configuration for certain microrganisms to thrive. There's probably more complexity in the computation of a decomposing body than a healthy one . Death is said to occur when the changes are irreversible, but people who have themselves cryonically preserved hope that future technology will allow what is currently thought to be irreversible to become reversible. Had we not already discovered the impossibility of resurrecting a dead person with raw electricity, would your position offer any insight into why that strategy would fail 100% of the time? Actually, we can sometimes resurrect a dead person with raw electricity in cases of cardiac arrest, which would previously have been defined as death. It's a case of the definition of death changing with technology. In future, there will probably be patients who would currently considered brain dead who will be able to be revived. That does not resurrect a dead person, it just helps restart a still-living person's heart. True, cardiac arrest will eventually kill a person, but sending electricity through the body of someone who has died of cholera or a stroke is not going to revive them. My point though is that there is nothing within functionalism which predicts the finality or complexity of death. If we are just a machine halting, why wouldn't fixing the machine restart it in theory? We can smuggle in our understanding of the irreversibility of death, and rationalize it after the fact, but can you honestly say that functionalism predicts the pervasiveness of it? Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:46:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, astrology and numerology. The all caps were in response to Bruno's all caps, No. I only quoted this. I think you wrote this (on the 25 january). (Not important. But I never use caps, except in figure, like in NUMBERS == MIND == PHYSICS, for example. If not it looks like we are angry!) No, I was responding to you: But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room COULD POSSIBLY be conscious or do you think that it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be conscious? Craig Bruno and no, you don't need astrology and numerology to understand that rooms are not haunted by the spirits of system-hood. *Except within the fictional narrative of a conscious experience. So only things that have conscious experiences can be conscious. Thanks for the news flash. No, the other way around. Only conscious experiences exist, but we can be misled about what exists. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:13, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, astrology and numerology. The all caps were in response to Bruno's all caps, and no, you don't need astrology and numerology to understand that rooms are not haunted by the spirits of system-hood. Imagine a small, roughly spherical room made out of a fairly hard material something like limestone. Make a few holes in it, fill it with some goop with the consistency of blancmange, decorate with sense organs and throw in a body. Et voila! Voila, a cadaver. Unless all such objects are cadavers, this disproves the statement that no room can be conscious. (I must admit the idea that no room can be conscious seems to demand qualification...) All such objects would be cadavers, in the absence of some subjective experience which is being expressed. What about anaesthesia and dreamless sleep? With comp it might be like with death, or approximation. The 1p experience are hard to describe, and usually hard to memorize except for vague feeling that some time has passed (when you come back). 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 January 2014 02:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! Sure, but the fact that you would expect that your assertion could or should have anything to do with your being conscious would not make sense in a universe in which consciousness did not exist in a fundamentally real way. I'm sorry, Craig, but nothing that you have said encourages me to believe that you have understood the paradox as posed or the particular problem it raises. What we must account for is that there is a causally closed extrinsic account, on which we rely utterly for every other purpose, that appears to refer to something with which it has no systematic connection. This would seem to imply that what truly exists is merely a mechanism that merely gives the appearance of making such references, but that this is in fact some sort of conceptual mistake (i.e. in truth there are no such references). Of course, were we to accept such a conclusion, we would be forced to eliminate consciousness, which is untenable to all but objectivist hard-liners who resolutely avert their eyes from the paradoxes that ensue. But postulating sense as fundamental doesn't save you from the paradox, unless you are willing to believe that the extrinsic account somehow just mimics the sensory one by some sort of pre-established harmony and that there is in fact no on-going systematic link between them. That's why, as I've argued in a post to Brent, we need a theory that is, at least, conceptually equipped to elucidate the systematic logical-causal links between *all* the domains that appear to be in play. Nothing that you have said persuades me that merely giving consciousness fundamental priority over everything else even addresses this issue. It merely reverses the paradox at the price of making the extrinsic account an isolated epiphenomenon and provides no explanation for how that epiphenomenon might be linked systematically to the sense it purports (per impossibile) to refer to. From my reading of you, I think you have fallen into confusing the notions of fundamental and irreducible. But in the appropriate schema, it is possible for entities (conscious phenomena, for example) to be irreducible to simpler explanatory elements, whilst still being, in an effective sense, derivable from them by systematic upwards or inner reference. Of course, demonstrating this in detail requires argumentative and technical rigour, rather than mere intuitive poetry, and I leave that to those better equipped than myself. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:48:55 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 02:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! Sure, but the fact that you would expect that your assertion could or should have anything to do with your being conscious would not make sense in a universe in which consciousness did not exist in a fundamentally real way. I'm sorry, Craig, but nothing that you have said encourages me to believe that you have understood the paradox as posed or the particular problem it raises. What we must account for is that there is a causally closed extrinsic account, There is a closed extrinsic account, but all accounts are subjective. There seems to be a closed extrinsic account, but that seems to evaporate under some states of consciousness. The degree to which it seems closed is not an absolute, and seems to be contingent instead upon awareness to some extent. on which we rely utterly for every other purpose, that appears to refer to something with which it has no systematic connection. This would seem to imply that what truly exists is merely a mechanism that merely gives the appearance of making such references, but that this is in fact some sort of conceptual mistake (i.e. in truth there are no such references). Of course, were we to accept such a conclusion, we would be forced to eliminate consciousness, which is untenable to all but objectivist hard-liners who resolutely avert their eyes from the paradoxes that ensue. What is a specific example of what you are talking about? The continuity of sense does not mean that it is objective in an absolute sense, only that our awareness is nested within an ongoing condition rather than contributing to it directly. The fact that my dream disappears when I wake up in the morning but the Earth persists for billions of my years doesn't mean that they are fundamentally different kinds of things. To the universe, duration may not be an appropriate measure of realism as it is for us. But postulating sense as fundamental doesn't save you from the paradox, unless you are willing to believe that the extrinsic account somehow just mimics the sensory one by some sort of pre-established harmony and that there is in fact no on-going systematic link between them. The extrinsic account is part of the sensory account. The sense fundamental means that there can be no account which is not sensory. Certainly there are many sensory accounts which are not available to us personally, but which are available to us indirectly through the extrinsic-facing senses of the body, but there is no problem with the congruency of all of the various views. Everything makes sense in the appropriate ways to reflect their relation to the whole. That's why, as I've argued in a post to Brent, we need a theory that is, at least, conceptually equipped to elucidate the systematic logical-causal links between *all* the domains that appear to be in play. Nothing that you have said persuades me that merely giving consciousness fundamental priority over everything else even addresses this issue. It merely reverses the paradox at the price of making the extrinsic account an isolated epiphenomenon and provides no explanation for how that epiphenomenon might be linked systematically to the sense it purports (per impossibile) to refer to. It's not an isolated epiphenomenon, it is a function of perceptual relativity. It's not necessarily possible to draw a direct relation between the extrinsic and the intrinsic, because the intrinsic contains the entire history of the universe, and requires it, whereas the extrinsic account is just a paper thin slice which by definition has only a collapsed signature of history. It gets us closer to understanding how to engineer reality only in the sense of helping us to realize that we are nowhere near as close as we think. From my perspective, everyone is talking about the passage to the Orient, and I'm saying 'actually it looks like there is a whole other side of the world over there'. From my reading of you, I think you have fallen into confusing the notions of fundamental and irreducible. But in the appropriate schema, it is possible for entities (conscious phenomena, for example) to be irreducible to simpler explanatory elements, whilst still being, in an effective sense, derivable from them by systematic upwards or inner reference. Of course, demonstrating this in detail requires argumentative and technical
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
David, Boy, O Boy! You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of not providing! Sorry for trying to help! :-) Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: In my view the whole UD can be as logically consistent as it wants to be but still has no connection with the actual observable reality of our universe... I'm afraid I don't seem to share your enviable certainty on the range of possibilities that could account for the actual observable reality of our universe. Some carefully reasoned argument that doesn't beg the most crucial questions might help. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 Jan 2014, at 02:06, David Nyman wrote: On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including, crucially, the articulation of our very thoughts and beliefs about conscious phenomena - can at least in principle be exhausted by an extrinsic account. But if this be so, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such extrinsic behaviours could possibly make reference to any intrinsic remainder, even were its existence granted. It isn't merely that any postulated remainder would be redundant in the explanation of such behaviour, but that it is hardly possible to see how an inner dual could even be accessible in principle to a complete (i.e. causally closed) extrinsic system of reference in the first place. Right, because the extrinsic perspective is blind to the limits of causal closure. But I'm afraid the problem is precisely that it behaves as if it is NOT in fact blind to such limits. As Bruno points out in a recent response to John Clark, if we rely on the causal closure of the extrinsic account (and which of us does not?) then we commit ourselves to the view that there must be such an account, at some level, of any behaviour to which we might otherwise wish to impute a conscious origin. However, my point above is that the problem is in fact even worse than this. In fact, it amounts to a paradox. The existence of a causally closed extrinsic account forces us to the view that the very thoughts and utterances - even our own - that purport to refer to irreducibly conscious phenomena must also be fully explicable extrinsically. Yes. The solution will be that explicable is a notion depending on level, and that eventually the scientist (played by Bp) cannot put itself at the (Bp p) place. Precisely, we can explain the reason of the paradox from the first point of view of the machine (the concrete (but immaterial person) owning that machine). But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin of reductionism :) You do the mistake of those who deny compatibilistic free-will. Of course we are at the crux of the mind-body problem. I take no credit for being the originator of this insight, although it isn't IMO acknowledged as often as it should be, perhaps because of its very intractability. It's sometimes referred to as the Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement. David Chalmers, for example, acknowledges it in passing in The Conscious Mind, fails to offer any solution and then proceeds to ignore it. In my mind thats the mind-body problem. I often called it the hard problem of consciousness. I show that any comp solutions of this is lead to a hard problem of matter. Gregg Rosenberg - who if you haven't read perhaps you should - deals with it a little more explicitly in A Place for Consciousness, but IMO ultimately also fails to square this particular circle. In fact I know of no mind-body theory, other than comp, that confronts it head-on and suggests at least the shape of a possible solution. That said, do you see what the paradox is and if you do, how specifically does your theory deal with it? I think that Craig is aware of this problem, so much that he used its apparent non tractability to make consciousness into a primitive. Others do that, but Craig is coherent by accepting the no-comp consequences. Of course taking consciousness as primitive is like abandoning the project to solve, or put light, on this problem. It leads to some form of solipsism, notably with respect to person owning only silicon computers (after losing their carbonic skull computer in some accident, say). I will have opportunity to say more, but Theaetetus is close to the solution, and it will work in arithmetic. In the comp solution, your consciousness has indeed nothing to do with the physical computation, nor even the arithmetical computation. It is more a universal knowledge, that brain and universal numbers can relatively particularize. That universal knowledge exist because numbers are not stupid. Simply. But the particularization, and the local universal neighbors can handicap the remembrance in many histories. The only remaining mystery will be our 1p faith in arithmetic. But this, the theory will explain that without it, we lost the ability to even ask the question. It re-explains in a second sight
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 Jan 2014, at 03:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 January 2014 10:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, astrology and numerology. The all caps were in response to Bruno's all caps, and no, you don't need astrology and numerology to understand that rooms are not haunted by the spirits of system-hood. Imagine a small, roughly spherical room made out of a fairly hard material something like limestone. Make a few holes in it, fill it with some goop with the consistency of blancmange, decorate with sense organs and throw in a body. Et voila! Voila, a cadaver. Unless it's all set up to function properly. What's wrong with the way a cadaver functions? Many changes occur after death, the end result of which is that in a cadaver, the parts are in the wrong configuration and therefore don't work together as they do in a living person. Not bad 3p-description. It is the same with machines and houses. They can decay, and nothing works no more. Death is said to occur when the changes are irreversible, Yes. The clinical 3p death. (For the 1p, the knower and owner of the body, it is more difficult). but people who have themselves cryonically preserved hope that future technology will allow what is currently thought to be irreversible to become reversible. They try to say yes to future doctors. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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.
Bruno Marchal's Combinator Chemistry
Found this by coincidence. Bruno is getting famous :) https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2008-11-12/combinator_chemistry.md -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
Good luck to Shu. I occasionally chat over dinner with a local professional physicist who disbelieves in the Big Bang. His alternative also stumbles over the CMB, though. I suspect that a good heuristic for inventing alternative theories is to not bother much to plumb their depths unless they (1) make a new or better prediction than the current consensus, and (2) also predict the major evidences of the current consensus. At least that way, when we tell people about our alternatives, we get disproven for less embarrassing reasons. :) Gabe On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:41:17 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, again a post FYI, not because I necessarily believe it. Edgar Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end. As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it’s hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling. That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity. Shu’s idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant. So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts. This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. *In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot exist in this cosmos.* It’s easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists. That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth. This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu’s universe. That’s in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work. The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate. But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world’s cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics in an attempt to square this circle. That paints Shu’s ideas in a slightly different perspective. There’s no need to abandon conservation of energy to make his theory work. That’s not to say Shu’s theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they say, is the echo of the Big bang. How it might arise in Shu’s cosmology isn’t yet clear but I imagine he’s working on it. Even if he finds a way, there will need to be some uncomfortable rethinking before his ideas can gain traction. His approach may well explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space and time. Rightly or wrongly, that’s a trade off that many will find hard. Let’s hope Shu sticks to his guns, if only for the sake of good old-fashioned debate Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 Jan 2014, at 06:00, meekerdb wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including, crucially, the articulation of our very thoughts and beliefs about conscious phenomena - can at least in principle be exhausted by an extrinsic account. But if this be so, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such extrinsic behaviours could possibly make reference to any intrinsic remainder, even were its existence granted. It isn't merely that any postulated remainder would be redundant in the explanation of such behaviour, but that it is hardly possible to see how an inner dual could even be accessible in principle to a complete (i.e. causally closed) extrinsic system of reference in the first place. Right, because the extrinsic perspective is blind to the limits of causal closure. But I'm afraid the problem is precisely that it behaves as if it is NOT in fact blind to such limits. As Bruno points out in a recent response to John Clark, if we rely on the causal closure of the extrinsic account (and which of us does not?) then we commit ourselves to the view that there must be such an account, at some level, of any behaviour to which we might otherwise wish to impute a conscious origin. However, my point above is that the problem is in fact even worse than this. In fact, it amounts to a paradox. The existence of a causally closed extrinsic account forces us to the view that the very thoughts and utterances - even our own - that purport to refer to irreducibly conscious phenomena must also be fully explicable extrinsically. But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! I take no credit for being the originator of this insight, But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. Thanks for precising this. I do think that both UDA and AUDA put (different) light on this. I hope you will follow enough of the modal logic. The explanations should be provided by the very existence of the arithmetical hypostases. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. You are two quick. It is primitive matter which would become epiphenomenal, but we can just abandon the idea. Consciousness will be justified by semantical (related with the arithmetical truth) fixed point for machine having enough belief (where an explicit belief is made of accessible self-representation). The Bp and Bp p views on oneself are in conflict, for all self- referentially correct machine. Then life teaches this in the hard way. The same reappears between Bp Dt and Bp Dt p. Consciousness is close to an instinctive belief in *some* truth, together with the fact that a part of that truth is true. It is a form of unconscious and unavoidable faith. It is the zeroth state of the mystical states. Bruno Brent although it isn't IMO acknowledged as often as it should be, perhaps because of its very intractability. It's sometimes referred to as the Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement. David Chalmers, for example, acknowledges it in passing in The Conscious Mind, fails to offer any solution and then proceeds to ignore it. Gregg Rosenberg - who if you haven't read perhaps you should - deals with it a little more explicitly in A Place for Consciousness, but IMO ultimately also fails to square this particular circle. In fact I know of no mind-body theory, other than comp, that confronts it head-on and suggests at least the shape of a possible solution. That said, do you see what the paradox is and if you do, how specifically does your theory deal with it? David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group 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
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 Jan 2014, at 06:19, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including, crucially, the articulation of our very thoughts and beliefs about conscious phenomena - can at least in principle be exhausted by an extrinsic account. But if this be so, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such extrinsic behaviours could possibly make reference to any intrinsic remainder, even were its existence granted. It isn't merely that any postulated remainder would be redundant in the explanation of such behaviour, but that it is hardly possible to see how an inner dual could even be accessible in principle to a complete (i.e. causally closed) extrinsic system of reference in the first place. Right, because the extrinsic perspective is blind to the limits of causal closure. But I'm afraid the problem is precisely that it behaves as if it is NOT in fact blind to such limits. As Bruno points out in a recent response to John Clark, if we rely on the causal closure of the extrinsic account (and which of us does not?) then we commit ourselves to the view that there must be such an account, at some level, of any behaviour to which we might otherwise wish to impute a conscious origin. However, my point above is that the problem is in fact even worse than this. In fact, it amounts to a paradox. The existence of a causally closed extrinsic account forces us to the view that the very thoughts and utterances - even our own - that purport to refer to irreducibly conscious phenomena must also be fully explicable extrinsically. But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! I take no credit for being the originator of this insight, But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an epiphenomenon. Is it not that very idea which leads to the notion of zombie? If consciousness is an epiphenomenon, eliminating it would change nothing in the 3p. If you start looking for consciousness being an extra thing with (perhaps) its own separate causal efficacy, that's where problems arise. Dualism is a problem. Making consciousness epiphenomenal is not satisfying, and basically contradicted in the everyday life. It is because pain is unpleasant that we take anesthetic medicine. The brain is obliged to lie at some (uncknown, crypted) level, not for consciousness (that it filters), but for pain and joy. That's normal. If you run toward the lion mouth, you lower the probability of surviving. Epiphenomenalism does not eliminate consciousness, but it still eliminate conscience and persons. With comp I think we avoid it, even if the solution will appear to be very Platonist, as truth, beauty, and universal values (mostly unknown) will be more real than their local terrestrial approximations through primitively physical brains and other interacting molecules like galaxies foam. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus. I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor worship for one day. and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth without using a truth predicate. I did read that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auda_ibu_Tayi But I don't see the relevance John k Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Teleportation - a small engineering hurdle
On 30 Jan 2014, at 09:44, Kim Jones wrote: http://io9.com/physicists-say-energy-can-be-teleported-without-a-limi-1511624230?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebookutm_source=io9_facebookutm_medium=socialflow Interesting how this pop article broaches the notion of a 'substitution level', as well as the amount of data required to beam anyone up, Scotty Someone will - one day But that's quantum teleportation. The beginning of classical teleportaion is one click away: http://io9.com/this-famous-brain-was-cut-into-2-400-slices-and-uploade-1511725901/@georgedvorsky :) Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 1/30/2014 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With comp it might be like with death, or approximation. The 1p experience are hard to describe, and usually hard to memorize except for vague feeling that some time has passed (when you come back). In my experience both concussions and anesthesia are characterized by *not* feeling that time has passed. 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: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 1/30/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: In the comp solution, your consciousness has indeed nothing to do with the physical computation, nor even the arithmetical computation. But empirically it has a lot to do with it, hence concussions and anesthesia. 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: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change. I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the subjective experience exist. I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct experience of the subjective. I don't have direct experience of YOUR conscious experience because it is a logical contradiction, if I did have it you wouldn't be you, you'd be me. And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external objective effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the matter in your nose. Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective experience, then a 3p causal description at some level will explain the external objective effect without mentioning the subjective experience. I agree with you of course, but that is what makes a part of the problem. Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain it. And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say it was caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully described by information) just as I already know from direct experience that my subjective experience is caused. And if I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, that is to say a sequence of What caused that? questions is not infinite and consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing more that can be said on the subject. I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels when it is being processed; In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness cannot be localized in one brain, Yes, because computations can't be localized either. Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of object having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass. And position not being relevant to consciousness is the reason your increasingly convoluted thought experiment about where the real you is located is worthless. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?
On 31 January 2014 04:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:07, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach them this stuff. I remember someone once showed me the definition of continuity in year 11 (with all the upside down As and back to frount Es), and it nearly did my head in. Of course, that is part and parcel of the 2nd year introduction to analysis course :). My son (15) is rather keen on summing infinite series now, after I showed him the -1/12 demonstration. I am wondering whether to introduce him to modal logic and the other things Bruno is trying to teach me (then he can do the exercises :) Why not? Just a joke. Actually if he understood it as well we would both learn much more quickly, I think. I have given him Godel Escher Bach to read :) Although if anything needs a Kindle edition it's that... Teaching math is the best way to learn math. *you* will learn, not just your son. But logic, the branch of math, is the most difficult branch of math, in the beginning. In my opinion. Even that remark is not obvious. Attempting to explain could add confusion. To do logic you have to abstract from your understanding. You have to understand what you have to not understand. You have to understand that We say that '(A B) is true if 'A is true and 'B is true is no more circular than the output of an and gate will be on if its two inputs are on. For a simple example. Logic might be a bit abstract for a kid, but as Smullyan illustrates it can also be fun. It is also a question of taste, and then logic appears as wide its taste spectrum, like most branch of math. We shall see. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Richard, I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions. :-) There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe. Omega = 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_the_universe) to a very good approximation, according to the latest measurements - so what's p-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 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Meanwhile - back at the ranch: Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, I'm afraid... I think to be fair he wants to work out the properties of conscious matter, e.g. (by assumption) brains, which is in line with the SF idea of computronium (assuming consciousness is in some sense a computation). Which isn't a completely flakey idea, because we already have computronium to some extent. He's stating that assumption up front, at least in the paper I read recently, and just seeing what follows. (Also, Tegmark's previous definition of consciousness was what information feels like when it's being processed which is in line with this approach, so he isn't making it up 100%) If he can show how physical supervenience works, he could even be onto something. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
As I wrote as an answer on my final astrophysics exam, Some 13 billion years ago, the universe was very much hotter and denser than it is now. This is a problem for any theory that assumes the past was always like the present, such as the Steady State cosmology. There is also the question of nucleo synthesis. If the present distribution of nucear abundances of the lightest elements was not due to them being created in primordial fireball, it is one hell of a coincidence that the abundances match the prediction of a model that assumes one. Indeed, the main reason for postulating dark matter and energy is that the nuclear abundances are only correctly predicted when the total baryonic matter is around 4% of the critical value required to make the universe flat, yet the extreme eveness of the CMB intails that the universe must be flat, or almost so. However we explain the origin of the universe in the future, its clear that it must feature a primordial fireball state some 10-13 billion years ago, in which most of the baryonic matter was forged. Cheers On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 08:52:16AM -0800, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: Good luck to Shu. I occasionally chat over dinner with a local professional physicist who disbelieves in the Big Bang. His alternative also stumbles over the CMB, though. I suspect that a good heuristic for inventing alternative theories is to not bother much to plumb their depths unless they (1) make a new or better prediction than the current consensus, and (2) also predict the major evidences of the current consensus. At least that way, when we tell people about our alternatives, we get disproven for less embarrassing reasons. :) Gabe On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:41:17 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, again a post FYI, not because I necessarily believe it. Edgar Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end. As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it’s hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling. That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity. Shu’s idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant. So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts. This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. *In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot exist in this cosmos.* It’s easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists. That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth. This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu’s universe. That’s in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work. The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate. But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world’s cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics in an attempt to square this circle. That paints Shu’s ideas in a slightly different perspective. There’s no need to abandon conservation of energy to make his
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 30 January 2014 16:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin of reductionism :) You do the mistake of those who deny compatibilistic free-will. Of course we are at the crux of the mind-body problem. Bruno, my dear and much-valued correspondent, you exasperate me sometimes by commenting a mere step in my argument as if it were the conclusion. I was attempting here to articulate the Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement in its default form (i.e. assuming a primitively-physical basis) because this is how it typically arises in the first place. Hence I meant this step of the argument to be a kind of reductio of this position. Later in my post I went on to say how that I think comp may avoid the paradox, which you also commented. If you could perhaps restrain your enthusiasm and read the post to the end before commenting, you might occasionally save yourself some typing! Don't mean to scold, just help :) BTW, although you say that Craig can perhaps avoid the POPJ by appealing to a non-comp theory, ISTM that the problem of reference is still there so long as his fundamental-sense theory relies on causally-closed extrinsic *appearances. However, under questioning he's so far been rather unclear about this aspect of his theory. Are such appearances causally closed? Do we not rely on such physical consistency? Maybe, sometimes, who knows, whatever. I might go so far as to say that he's been dodging the question. That said, if I'm even approximately right about this fundamental problem of reference, then of theories known to me, only comp confronts the POPJ directly. The plausible resolution of the paradox, if I've understood you, lies in the capability of the machine to refer to non-shareable but incorrigible truths beyond formal proof and demonstration. Then - if we are machines - our own incontrovertible faith in, and ability to refer to, such indexical facts may serve as the warrant that also delivers our fellow machines from zombie-hood. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. I thought SR already did that? (Combined them, I mean). So they are already not independent entities...? (Brent? :) Also, I thought GR explained why energy isn't conserved on the scale of the universe, tho I may have this wrong (Brent!!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Big Bang Never Happened - Eric Lerner
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar *Eric Lerner* *Big Bang Never Happened* http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ *Home Page and Summary* ... Is the Big Bang a Bust? The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. By Eric Lerner New York: Random House, 1991, 466 pp. Cloth, $21.95. Victor J. Stenger Published in Skeptical Inquirer 16, 412, Summer 1992. Normally the refutation of a dominant scientific theory takes place on the pages of a scientific journal. But strange things are happening in science these days, as a Nobel laureate admits to publishing falsified data, great research universities are accused of misspending, and wacky claims like cold fusion are announced by press conference. News magazines proclaim that science is in trouble, so it must be so. The scientific establishment has been smug and complacent for too long. It's high time it was pulled down from its pedestal and told who's boss in a democratic society. The big-bang theory is the standard framework within which most cosmologists operate, having assumed the same position held by evolution for biologists and quantum mechanics for physicists. Eric Lerner wishes to pull down not only that framework, but also what he perceives as the outdated mentality that built it. Lerner's case against the big bang is composed of several different lines of argument. The first is conventional scientific criticism: The big-bang conjecture is said to be invalidated by the data. Cosmologists have a theory, the big bang, that makes specific quantitative and qualitative predictions that are tested against observations. They claim success for a significant majority of these tests, far exceeding all alternatives. The recent highly-publicized results from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE) provide further evidence for the validity of the big-bang model. While admitting that a detailed, satisfactory explanation of several phenomena, notably large-scale structure formation, is yet to be provided, big-bang cosmologists do not see this as fatal. Lerner, however, argues that these deficiencies are so severe as to invalidate the whole notion of a universe finite in time and space. The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't seriously expect to prove it in a popular book. The issue is hardly likely to be settled without the technical detail, careful reasoning, and expert critical review of the conventional scientific paper or monograph, which this is not. Lerner attempts to go over the heads of cosmologists to the general public. Despite current criticism of science, I see no sign that the public is demanding suffrage in the determination of scientific truth. The author does not limit himself to a scientific critique of big-bang cosmology, but has a larger agenda. His goal is to refute not just the big bang, but the very thought processes of conventional science as well. He argues that the hypothesis-testing procedure is a throwback to Platonism, a product of theological rather than scientific thinking and antithetic to the essence of the scientific revolution. According to the author, the equations used in big- bang calculations are treated by the science elite as the ultimate reality of the universe - like Plato's forms. Even after these equations are shown to disagree with observational facts, as Lerner claims they have been, they are retained by big bangers because of an irrational prejudice that the theory must be correct regardless of the facts. Rather than discard the big-bang theory, cosmologists invent new unobserved phenomena, such as cosmic strings and invisible dark matter, to save the phenomena. The big bang is promoted, in Lerner's view, because science has sacrificed its soul to theology. The theory confirms the theological notion of creation _ex nihilo_: The universe is finite, having a definite beginning, created with a fixed design, and gradually winding down under the inexorable effect of the second law of thermodynamics. Lerner argues that this picture disintegrates on exposure to observed facts, not just those gathered with telescopes but common experience as well. From everyday observations, the universe is growing and evolving to a state of increasing order. The second law is simply wrong, or wrongfully interpreted. The curved space and black holes predicted by general relativity are likewise not common experience, but the result of abstruse mathematics. Lerner says we should believe what our eyes tell us, not some fashionable mathematical equation. Finally, Lerner finds within this cosmotheological conspiracy the source of most of the evils of society. The slavery of the past and the continued authoritarianism of the present somehow arise from the idea that the
Re: The Big Bang Never Happened - Eric Lerner
Time to look for polarisation in the CMBR and check for gravity waves... or are we already onto that? :) On 31 January 2014 10:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar *Eric Lerner* *Big Bang Never Happened* http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ *Home Page and Summary* ... Is the Big Bang a Bust? The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. By Eric Lerner New York: Random House, 1991, 466 pp. Cloth, $21.95. Victor J. Stenger Published in Skeptical Inquirer 16, 412, Summer 1992. Normally the refutation of a dominant scientific theory takes place on the pages of a scientific journal. But strange things are happening in science these days, as a Nobel laureate admits to publishing falsified data, great research universities are accused of misspending, and wacky claims like cold fusion are announced by press conference. News magazines proclaim that science is in trouble, so it must be so. The scientific establishment has been smug and complacent for too long. It's high time it was pulled down from its pedestal and told who's boss in a democratic society. The big-bang theory is the standard framework within which most cosmologists operate, having assumed the same position held by evolution for biologists and quantum mechanics for physicists. Eric Lerner wishes to pull down not only that framework, but also what he perceives as the outdated mentality that built it. Lerner's case against the big bang is composed of several different lines of argument. The first is conventional scientific criticism: The big-bang conjecture is said to be invalidated by the data. Cosmologists have a theory, the big bang, that makes specific quantitative and qualitative predictions that are tested against observations. They claim success for a significant majority of these tests, far exceeding all alternatives. The recent highly-publicized results from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE) provide further evidence for the validity of the big-bang model. While admitting that a detailed, satisfactory explanation of several phenomena, notably large-scale structure formation, is yet to be provided, big-bang cosmologists do not see this as fatal. Lerner, however, argues that these deficiencies are so severe as to invalidate the whole notion of a universe finite in time and space. The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't seriously expect to prove it in a popular book. The issue is hardly likely to be settled without the technical detail, careful reasoning, and expert critical review of the conventional scientific paper or monograph, which this is not. Lerner attempts to go over the heads of cosmologists to the general public. Despite current criticism of science, I see no sign that the public is demanding suffrage in the determination of scientific truth. The author does not limit himself to a scientific critique of big-bang cosmology, but has a larger agenda. His goal is to refute not just the big bang, but the very thought processes of conventional science as well. He argues that the hypothesis-testing procedure is a throwback to Platonism, a product of theological rather than scientific thinking and antithetic to the essence of the scientific revolution. According to the author, the equations used in big- bang calculations are treated by the science elite as the ultimate reality of the universe - like Plato's forms. Even after these equations are shown to disagree with observational facts, as Lerner claims they have been, they are retained by big bangers because of an irrational prejudice that the theory must be correct regardless of the facts. Rather than discard the big-bang theory, cosmologists invent new unobserved phenomena, such as cosmic strings and invisible dark matter, to save the phenomena. The big bang is promoted, in Lerner's view, because science has sacrificed its soul to theology. The theory confirms the theological notion of creation _ex nihilo_: The universe is finite, having a definite beginning, created with a fixed design, and gradually winding down under the inexorable effect of the second law of thermodynamics. Lerner argues that this picture disintegrates on exposure to observed facts, not just those gathered with telescopes but common experience as well. From everyday observations, the universe is growing and evolving to a state of increasing order. The second law is simply wrong, or wrongfully interpreted. The curved space and black holes predicted by general relativity are likewise not common experience, but the result of abstruse mathematics. Lerner says we should believe what our eyes tell us, not some
Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis
Brent, So what you are saying is that because everything travels through spacetime at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's path through SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path through time must be correspondingly shorter? At least that's my understanding and the way I'd express it. However according to what you said yesterday that the time slowing effect is due to the longer travel time of photons due to relative motion away from each other, wouldn't A see B's clock slow by the SAME amount that B see's A's clock slow DURING the trip due to the equal and opposite relative motion and the equally longer and longer time photons from each take to reach the other? But that seems to contradict the first result which implies A and B should observe each other's clocks NOT slowing by the same rate DURING the trip because A is actually moving in space and B isn't. So what's your explanation for the apparent contradiction? Thanks, Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:25:09 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if I may... In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example. Two observers A and B. A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at the galactic center, Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship. Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock? It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration for the duration of the trip. I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount during the trip? And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both observers can agree upon? You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in this case? What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result? A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year 30,000yr. So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very near c. So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact values you have to integrate the differential equations: dt/dtau = 1/gamma dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2 dx/dtau = v/gamma where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2) The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different distances they travel through space-time to reach their final meeting, which is indeed down to geometry (in this case involving curves rather the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by integrating the relevant equations, as indicated). So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time *is*responsible for the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not sure whether that contradicts geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow - probably not. Exactly. The clocks faithfully measure the interval along their respective paths. It's the difference in the paths, the geometry, that is the difference in duration. PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a lot of stuff between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that even a dust grain would hit a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb once it was near peak velocity, which according to my calculations is 0.995c (or in any case p.d.q.) Even without dust the intergalactic hydrogen atoms would make it similar to standing in the LHC beam - but with a lot more luminosity. 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
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Liz, Good question. Give me the formula to get the radius of a 4-dimensional hypersphere from the curvature and I'll tell you. I asked for this already and Brent gave me a formula that seems to make some extraneous assumptions. The problem is that Omega doesn't simply seem to be the curvature in the ordinary sense of hyperspherical geometry so some sort of initial conversion of Omega needs to be made first and I don't know what that must be... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Richard, I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions. :-) There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe. Omega = 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_the_universe) to a very good approximation, according to the latest measurements - so what's p-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: A theory of dark matter...
Edgar, if Omega=1 the universe wouldn't have the geometry of a hypersphere, 3D space would be flat--it would be more like a hyperplane. Only if Omega is greater than 1 would it have the positive curvature of a hypersphere (and if Omega is less than 1 space would have a hyperbolic geometry with negative curvature, whose 2D analogue looks something like a saddle--see the 3 basic types of geometry shown at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm ) Also, the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric which Omega appears in makes an important simplifying assumption: instead of a bunch of localized stars and galaxies, it treats all of space as being filled with a perfect fluid, and it assumes there is a way to define simultaneity in a way that results in a bunch of 3D slices where the density of the fluid is perfectly uniform in each slice (though it decreases from earlier slices to later slices as the universe expands). So even if you decide to define your present in terms of such a slicing, it's obvious that in the real universe there are variations in density of matter, so this doesn't give us a guide as to what the correct definition of simultaneity would be in the neighborhood of a given localized clump of matter. In particular, there are many different coordinate systems with different definitions of simultaneity that are used by physicists to describe the neighborhood of a black hole--Schwarzschild coordinates, Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates being some of the most commonly-used ones--so what experiment would you propose for deciding which definition of simultaneity is the correct one? Jesse On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Good question. Give me the formula to get the radius of a 4-dimensional hypersphere from the curvature and I'll tell you. I asked for this already and Brent gave me a formula that seems to make some extraneous assumptions. The problem is that Omega doesn't simply seem to be the curvature in the ordinary sense of hyperspherical geometry so some sort of initial conversion of Omega needs to be made first and I don't know what that must be... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard, I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions. :-) There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe. Omega = 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_the_universe) to a very good approximation, according to the latest measurements - so what's p-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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Omega=1 (to within 0.4%) which means the universe is very close to flat (or even hyperflat). This is what would be predicted by inflation (which is just as well, because I believe inflation was invented specifically to solve the flatness problem !) If one treats the universe as having uniformly expanded from a point in hyperspace, this measurement would make it very large (and hence, naively one would think it was very old). But of course inflation means the expansion was very, very nonuniform. Assuming the universe is a hypersphere, it blew up to a huge size (by a scale factor of 10^78) in a very short time (around 10^-33 sec), and then continued to coast at a much reduced speed thereafter. This makes any measurement of the universe's (hyper-) radius unlikely to give us a useful answer concerning p-time (taken as roughly the distance of the universe from its hypothetical origin in hyperspace divided by how fast it is expanding away from that point, I assume). If this was a useful calculation, I think it would be reasonable to treat the universe as an ideal fluid, where the only bound systems are atoms, for the purpose of getting a rough answer. But I doubt that it would give any sort of useful answer, assuming inflation really happened. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 31 January 2014 02:29, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including, crucially, the articulation of our very thoughts and beliefs about conscious phenomena - can at least in principle be exhausted by an extrinsic account. But if this be so, it is very difficult indeed to understand how such extrinsic behaviours could possibly make reference to any intrinsic remainder, even were its existence granted. It isn't merely that any postulated remainder would be redundant in the explanation of such behaviour, but that it is hardly possible to see how an inner dual could even be accessible in principle to a complete (i.e. causally closed) extrinsic system of reference in the first place. Right, because the extrinsic perspective is blind to the limits of causal closure. But I'm afraid the problem is precisely that it behaves as if it is NOT in fact blind to such limits. As Bruno points out in a recent response to John Clark, if we rely on the causal closure of the extrinsic account (and which of us does not?) then we commit ourselves to the view that there must be such an account, at some level, of any behaviour to which we might otherwise wish to impute a conscious origin. However, my point above is that the problem is in fact even worse than this. In fact, it amounts to a paradox. The existence of a causally closed extrinsic account forces us to the view that the very thoughts and utterances - even our own - that purport to refer to irreducibly conscious phenomena must also be fully explicable extrinsically. But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation? To put this baldly, even whilst asserting with absolute certainty the fact that I am conscious I am forced nonetheless to accept that this very assertion need have nothing to do (and, more strongly, cannot have anything to do) with the fact that I am conscious! I take no credit for being the originator of this insight, But you have explained it well. And it's not at all clear to me that Bruno's computational theory avoids this paradox. It seems there will still, in the UD computation, be a closed account of the physical processes. No doubt it will be computationally linked with some provable sentences, which Bruno wants to then identify with beliefs. But this still leaves beliefs as epiphenomena of the physical processes; even if comp explains them both. I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an epiphenomenon. If you start looking for consciousness being an extra thing with (perhaps) its own separate causal efficacy, that's where problems arise. Then you would still have the problem of why there are epiphenomema. They are already an extra thing with no functional explanation. That statement assumes the possibility of zombies. If consciousness is epiphenomenal, zombies are impossible. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 31 January 2014 02:51, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Had we not already discovered the impossibility of resurrecting a dead person with raw electricity, would your position offer any insight into why that strategy would fail 100% of the time? Actually, we can sometimes resurrect a dead person with raw electricity in cases of cardiac arrest, which would previously have been defined as death. It's a case of the definition of death changing with technology. In future, there will probably be patients who would currently considered brain dead who will be able to be revived. That does not resurrect a dead person, it just helps restart a still-living person's heart. True, cardiac arrest will eventually kill a person, but sending electricity through the body of someone who has died of cholera or a stroke is not going to revive them. My point though is that there is nothing within functionalism which predicts the finality or complexity of death. If we are just a machine halting, why wouldn't fixing the machine restart it in theory? We can smuggle in our understanding of the irreversibility of death, and rationalize it after the fact, but can you honestly say that functionalism predicts the pervasiveness of it? Death used to be defined as the cessation of heartbeat and breathing, so according to this definition you *could* resurrect a dead person with fairly simple techniques which fix the machine. In the future, this may be possible with what is currently defined as brain death. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 31 January 2014 04:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an epiphenomenon. Is it not that very idea which leads to the notion of zombie? If consciousness is an epiphenomenon, eliminating it would change nothing in the 3p. There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal. Equivalently, if consciousness is epiphenomenal we could say it does not really exist and we are all zombies; but I think that's just semantics, and misleading. If you start looking for consciousness being an extra thing with (perhaps) its own separate causal efficacy, that's where problems arise. Dualism is a problem. Making consciousness epiphenomenal is not satisfying, and basically contradicted in the everyday life. It is because pain is unpleasant that we take anesthetic medicine. The brain is obliged to lie at some (uncknown, crypted) level, not for consciousness (that it filters), but for pain and joy. That's normal. If you run toward the lion mouth, you lower the probability of surviving. Epiphenomenalism does not eliminate consciousness, but it still eliminate conscience and persons. I don't think it diminishes the significance of consciousness, but maybe I just look at it differently. With comp I think we avoid it, even if the solution will appear to be very Platonist, as truth, beauty, and universal values (mostly unknown) will be more real than their local terrestrial approximations through primitively physical brains and other interacting molecules like galaxies foam. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Jesse, Your first paragraph is correct. My theory, or at least this part of the theory, makes the prediction that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with p-time its radial dimension, i.e. that Omega is very slightly 1. See my previous post of today in response to Ghibssa for considerably more detail and why p-time implies this. Re your second paragraph, if Omega is actually the curvature of space, it should be possible to calculate the RADIUS of that positively curved space for every 1 value of Omega should it not? If so, then what is the formula? Make the assumption that the geometry of the universe is 4-dimensional hypersphere with the time from the present back to the big bang as it's radial dimension. Is there any way to use Omega to calculate what the radius of that time dimension would be making that assumption? Just make the assumption even if you don't agree with it and tell me if that calculation is possible please Thanks, Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:07:59 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: Edgar, if Omega=1 the universe wouldn't have the geometry of a hypersphere, 3D space would be flat--it would be more like a hyperplane. Only if Omega is greater than 1 would it have the positive curvature of a hypersphere (and if Omega is less than 1 space would have a hyperbolic geometry with negative curvature, whose 2D analogue looks something like a saddle--see the 3 basic types of geometry shown at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm ) Also, the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric which Omega appears in makes an important simplifying assumption: instead of a bunch of localized stars and galaxies, it treats all of space as being filled with a perfect fluid, and it assumes there is a way to define simultaneity in a way that results in a bunch of 3D slices where the density of the fluid is perfectly uniform in each slice (though it decreases from earlier slices to later slices as the universe expands). So even if you decide to define your present in terms of such a slicing, it's obvious that in the real universe there are variations in density of matter, so this doesn't give us a guide as to what the correct definition of simultaneity would be in the neighborhood of a given localized clump of matter. In particular, there are many different coordinate systems with different definitions of simultaneity that are used by physicists to describe the neighborhood of a black hole--Schwarzschild coordinates, Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, and Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates being some of the most commonly-used ones--so what experiment would you propose for deciding which definition of simultaneity is the correct one? Jesse On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Liz, Good question. Give me the formula to get the radius of a 4-dimensional hypersphere from the curvature and I'll tell you. I asked for this already and Brent gave me a formula that seems to make some extraneous assumptions. The problem is that Omega doesn't simply seem to be the curvature in the ordinary sense of hyperspherical geometry so some sort of initial conversion of Omega needs to be made first and I don't know what that must be... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Richard, I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions. :-) There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe. Omega = 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_the_universe) to a very good approximation, according to the latest measurements - so what's p-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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
Liz, In my theory one possible explanation of inflation could be an initial vast difference in the rates of p-time and clock time. I'm not saying that is the only explanation but it is a consistent one in my theory. Thus it is meaningful to derive the radius of my proposed 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe to test that theory among others. If we compare the 13.7 billion CLOCK time radius with some quite different P-time radius then we can begin to narrow that down and get some quantitative measure of the differences in rates. Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:47:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Omega=1 (to within 0.4%) which means the universe is very close to flat (or even hyperflat). This is what would be predicted by inflation (which is just as well, because I believe inflation was invented specifically to solve the flatness problem !) If one treats the universe as having uniformly expanded from a point in hyperspace, this measurement would make it very large (and hence, naively one would think it was very old). But of course inflation means the expansion was very, very nonuniform. Assuming the universe is a hypersphere, it blew up to a huge size (by a scale factor of 10^78) in a very short time (around 10^-33 sec), and then continued to coast at a much reduced speed thereafter. This makes any measurement of the universe's (hyper-) radius unlikely to give us a useful answer concerning p-time (taken as roughly the distance of the universe from its hypothetical origin in hyperspace divided by how fast it is expanding away from that point, I assume). If this was a useful calculation, I think it would be reasonable to treat the universe as an ideal fluid, where the only bound systems are atoms, for the purpose of getting a rough answer. But I doubt that it would give any sort of useful answer, assuming inflation really happened. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:08:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 16:33, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote: Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin of reductionism :) You do the mistake of those who deny compatibilistic free-will. Of course we are at the crux of the mind-body problem. Bruno, my dear and much-valued correspondent, you exasperate me sometimes by commenting a mere step in my argument as if it were the conclusion. I was attempting here to articulate the Paradox of Phenomenal Judgement in its default form (i.e. assuming a primitively-physical basis) because this is how it typically arises in the first place. Hence I meant this step of the argument to be a kind of reductio of this position. Later in my post I went on to say how that I think comp may avoid the paradox, which you also commented. If you could perhaps restrain your enthusiasm and read the post to the end before commenting, you might occasionally save yourself some typing! Don't mean to scold, just help :) BTW, although you say that Craig can perhaps avoid the POPJ by appealing to a non-comp theory, ISTM that the problem of reference is still there so long as his fundamental-sense theory relies on causally-closed extrinsic *appearances. If it relies on extrinsic appearances, then sense wouldn't be fundamental. I call my view of sense Primordial Identity Pansensitivity - which means that all possible phenomena are sensory experiences, including the experience of having experiences, or being a being. Causality itself supervenes on senses like memory, sequence, change, inertia, correspondence...lots of sensible infrastructure has to be in place before causality can appear. However, under questioning he's so far been rather unclear about this aspect of his theory. If I am it is certainly not intentional. What does it seem like I'm unclear about? There's always my website too if you are interested: http://multisenserealism.com Are such appearances causally closed? Do we not rely on such physical consistency? The we of individual human beings relies on physical consistency because that is a common sensory experience of the animalorganismsubstance context. The substance context however relies on the we of the Absolute context. The biological context relies on those wes, and the animal context relies on the biological wes. It's all nested but the bottom of each extrinsic level is being supported by the top of the previous intrinsic level. I was trying to get at something close to that in this diagram: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/shoelace.jpg Maybe, sometimes, who knows, whatever. I might go so far as to say that he's been dodging the question. That said, if I'm even approximately right about this fundamental problem of reference, then of theories known to me, only comp confronts the POPJ directly. The plausible resolution of the paradox, if I've understood you, lies in the capability of the machine to refer to non-shareable but incorrigible truths beyond formal proof and demonstration. Then - if we are machines - our own incontrovertible faith in, and ability to refer to, such indexical facts may serve as the warrant that also delivers our fellow machines from zombie-hood. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
You may consider that repeated assertions of there is absolutely no way constitute a carefully reasoned argument, but I'm afraid I do not. David On 30 Jan 2014 16:18, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: David, Boy, O Boy! You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of not providing! Sorry for trying to help! :-) Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: In my view the whole UD can be as logically consistent as it wants to be but still has no connection with the actual observable reality of our universe... I'm afraid I don't seem to share your enviable certainty on the range of possibilities that could account for the actual observable reality of our universe. Some carefully reasoned argument that doesn't beg the most crucial questions might help. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Better Than the Chinese Room
David, OK, if there IS a way that Bruno's comp produces the fine tuning AND actual happening then explain what it is. You can't claim there is a way without explaining what it is. If you can't then I repeat my assertion that there is absolutely no way it does, and that assertion is convincing... How does the fine tuning and the actual state of the observed universe emerge from Bruno's comp, from pure static arithmetic? How does actual movement emerge from Bruno's comp, from pure static arithmetic? If you can't explain it your statements are just statements of faith... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:54:07 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: You may consider that repeated assertions of there is absolutely no way constitute a carefully reasoned argument, but I'm afraid I do not. David On 30 Jan 2014 16:18, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: David, Boy, O Boy! You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of not providing! Sorry for trying to help! :-) Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: In my view the whole UD can be as logically consistent as it wants to be but still has no connection with the actual observable reality of our universe... I'm afraid I don't seem to share your enviable certainty on the range of possibilities that could account for the actual observable reality of our universe. Some carefully reasoned argument that doesn't beg the most crucial questions might help. David -- You received this message because you are 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.
Unput and Onput
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we think of sense and motive as input and output. This is only a step away from Comp, so it should not be construed to mean that I am defining sense and motive as merely input and output. My purpose here is just to demonstrate that Comp takes so much for granted that it is not even viable as a primitive within its own definitions. Can we all agree that the notion of input and output is ontologically essential to the function of computation? Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output? This would suggest that computation can only be defined as a meaningful product in a non-comp environment, otherwise there would be no inputting and outputting, only instantaneous results within a Platonic ocean of arithmetic truth. Where do we find input and output within arithmetic though? What makes it happen without invoking a physical or experiential context? As an aside, its interesting to play with the idea of building a view of computation from a sensory-motive perspective. When we use a computer to automate mental tasks it could be said that we are 'unputting' the effort that would have been required otherwise. When we use a machine to emulate our own presence in our absence, such as a Facebook profile, we are onputting ourselves in some digital context. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
Concerning comp, the most constructive suggestion I can give you is that you read Bruno's papers and work through his detailed arguments. You will find him very patient in answering any questions. I don't see myself as a defender of his ideas, but I have found (over many years, I should say) that carefully reflecting on them - which, speaking as someone who has worked professionally with computers for most of my life, had struck me at first as just obviously wrong - has in practice given me pause to reconsider whatever certainties I may originally have had concerning what might be real, actual or obvious. David On 31 Jan 2014 02:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: David, OK, if there IS a way that Bruno's comp produces the fine tuning AND actual happening then explain what it is. You can't claim there is a way without explaining what it is. If you can't then I repeat my assertion that there is absolutely no way it does, and that assertion is convincing... How does the fine tuning and the actual state of the observed universe emerge from Bruno's comp, from pure static arithmetic? How does actual movement emerge from Bruno's comp, from pure static arithmetic? If you can't explain it your statements are just statements of faith... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:54:07 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: You may consider that repeated assertions of there is absolutely no way constitute a carefully reasoned argument, but I'm afraid I do not. David On 30 Jan 2014 16:18, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: David, Boy, O Boy! You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of not providing! Sorry for trying to help! :-) Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: In my view the whole UD can be as logically consistent as it wants to be but still has no connection with the actual observable reality of our universe... I'm afraid I don't seem to share your enviable certainty on the range of possibilities that could account for the actual observable reality of our universe. Some carefully reasoned argument that doesn't beg the most crucial questions might help. David -- You received this message because you are 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing something changing. Change is by definition things being different at different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you will naturally get a static universe, just as putting together all the moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only from a God's eye perspective. This is the perspective science gives us, the perspective given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; it isn't the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those equations and so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as to be isomorphic to reality). Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a non-problem, and has been since Newton published his Principia. There *are* problems with comp, of course, like the white rabbit problem. Does anyone have any new views on the real problems, rather than worrying about straw men? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Unput and Onput
It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of the programme). Obviously this isn't much use in practice, of course! But from a philosophical perspective it's possible, so it isn't ontologically essential to the function of computation. A trivial example would be my son's Python programme to generate 2000 digits of pi. It just uses some existing equation which generates each digit in sequence. It happens to write the output to the screen, but if he took out the relevant PRINT statement, it wouldn't - but it would still compute the result. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Unput and Onput
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of the programme). Added how though? By inputting code, yes? Obviously this isn't much use in practice, of course! But from a philosophical perspective it's possible, so it isn't ontologically essential to the function of computation. A trivial example would be my son's Python programme to generate 2000 digits of pi. It just uses some existing equation which generates each digit in sequence. It happens to write the output to the screen, but if he took out the relevant PRINT statement, it wouldn't - but it would still compute the result. The existing equation was input at some point though, and without the output, whether or not there was a computation is academic (and unfalsifiable). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing something changing. Change is by definition things being different at different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you will naturally get a static universe, just as putting together all the moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only from a God's eye perspective. This is the perspective science gives us, the perspective given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; it isn't the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those equations and so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as to be isomorphic to reality). Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a non-problem, and has been since Newton published his Principia. Is a description the same as emergence though? We can read a film strip as a moving picture because of the nature of our sensory capacities, not because the moving picture emerges from the God's Eye view of the frames. F=ma begins with acceleration already assumed, so it is an equation that we interpret as referring to motion, nut the equation itself doesn't refer to anything. It's neither static nor dynamic, its just conceptual. There *are* problems with comp, of course, like the white rabbit problem. Does anyone have any new views on the real problems, rather than worrying about straw men? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A theory of dark matter...
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Your first paragraph is correct. My theory, or at least this part of the theory, makes the prediction that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with p-time its radial dimension, i.e. that Omega is very slightly 1. See my previous post of today in response to Ghibssa for considerably more detail and why p-time implies this. Re your second paragraph, if Omega is actually the curvature of space, it should be possible to calculate the RADIUS of that positively curved space for every 1 value of Omega should it not? If so, then what is the formula? Make the assumption that the geometry of the universe is 4-dimensional hypersphere with the time from the present back to the big bang as it's radial dimension. Is there any way to use Omega to calculate what the radius of that time dimension would be making that assumption? Just make the assumption even if you don't agree with it and tell me if that calculation is possible please As I said, in an FLRW metric it's possible to slice the 4D spacetime into as series of curved 3D hypersurfaces in such a way that the density of the perfect fluid filling space is totally homogenous in each slice--what are known as surfaces of homogeneity. For positive Omega, each of these curved hypersurfaces is equivalent to the curved 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere in a 4D Euclidean space. There's a parameter R(t) that appears in some of the FLRW equations, and in the case of a closed FLRW universe, I believe it's equivalent to the radius of the hyperspherical universe at any given time, if you imagine embedding the curved 3D space in a Euclidean 4D space, like the curved 2D surface of a sphere sitting in ordinary 3D space (though such an embedding space is not actually necessary to describe a curved surface mathematically, you can describe curvature purely in terms of the lengths of paths within the surface itself, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_geometry#Intrinsic_versus_extrinsic). You can indeed write an equation that relates R(t) to Omega(t), see the last two equations that appear prior to the section Evolution of Energy Density on p. 3 of the paper at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A5682/notes4.pdf . The equation involves a(t) and R0, and they mention earlier that a(t) is the scale factor, so that the radius at any time t is given by a(t)*R0 where R0 is the radius when a(t)=1. The equation also involves the energy density which is another function of time, but the Evolution of Energy Density section discusses how energy density can be defined in terms of a(t) so it's not really an independent parameter. But if your idea is to take the series of hyperspheres representing space at different times and nest them like an onion, treating time as the radius, there's a problem with this: the radius would *not* be directly proportional to the cosmological time t, where t is defined in terms of the proper time (clock time) of an observer who has remained at rest with respect to the local cosmic fluid around her since the Big Bang. In a closed FLRW universe the radius expands more quickly at earlier times than later times, until eventually the universe reaches a maximum radius and then it starts to contract again. Also, you didn't really address my question about deviations from the perfectly homogenous perfect fluid assumed in the FLRW model. In terms of slicing the 4D spacetime into a series of 3D slices, I think this would mean that instead of perfect hyperspheres you'd at best get approximate hyperspheres with dimples of various sorts, and I can't think of any straightforward rule for deciding *how* to slice the 4D spacetime into 3D slices (how to foliate the spacetime) akin to the simple choice of picking slices where the fluid has a perfectly uniform density in the FLRW model. So if you are presented with multiple choices of how to foliate the spacetime, each of which has the property that each slice is approximately a hypersphere at large scales, but with different foliations differing in the fine-grained details of which pairs of events in the neighborhood of gravity wells are assigned to the same slice, how would you decide which slicing represented true simultaneity, if any? Or are you just throwing out general relativity's claim about concentrations of matter causing local curvature in spacetime, and saying the curvature of space will be a perfect hypersphere regardless of how non-uniform the matter distribution is? Jesse On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:07:59 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: Edgar, if Omega=1 the universe wouldn't have the geometry of a hypersphere, 3D space would be flat--it would be more like a hyperplane. Only if Omega is greater than 1 would it have the positive curvature of a hypersphere (and if Omega is less than 1 space would have a hyperbolic geometry with negative curvature, whose 2D analogue looks something like
Re: Unput and Onput
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of the programme). Added how though? By inputting code, yes? All code has to be input. That isn't input TO the programme, however, it's setting up the programme before it is run. Obviously this isn't much use in practice, of course! But from a philosophical perspective it's possible, so it isn't ontologically essential to the function of computation. A trivial example would be my son's Python programme to generate 2000 digits of pi. It just uses some existing equation which generates each digit in sequence. It happens to write the output to the screen, but if he took out the relevant PRINT statement, it wouldn't - but it would still compute the result. The existing equation was input at some point though, and without the output, whether or not there was a computation is academic (and unfalsifiable). That wasn't the point. The question was whether I/O is ontologically essential to the function of computation. Quite clearly, the answer is no. The function of computation *can* exist without any I/O, so that answers the question. I was just answering your question honestly and as accurately as I could. If you're going to change the question to something else when I attempt to answer it, I won't bother in future. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing something changing. Change is by definition things being different at different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you will naturally get a static universe, just as putting together all the moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only from a God's eye perspective. This is the perspective science gives us, the perspective given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; it isn't the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those equations and so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as to be isomorphic to reality). Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a non-problem, and has been since Newton published his Principia. Is a description the same as emergence though? We can read a film strip as a moving picture because of the nature of our sensory capacities, not because the moving picture emerges from the God's Eye view of the frames. F=ma begins with acceleration already assumed, so it is an equation that we interpret as referring to motion, nut the equation itself doesn't refer to anything. It's neither static nor dynamic, its just conceptual. I am illustrating where the idea of a block universe comes from, and the context in which it makes sense. If you mean ontological emergence, the origin of physics, that can't be answered within the framework of explaining how a block universe works. It's a separate question. If you mean emergence within a block universe, clearly that can occur, as it happened in the past, and the past is a block universe according to the normal definition. Or maybe you're just talking nonsense. F=ma refers to a mass accelerating under a force. It is a static equation describing a dynamic process, something that could be useful in visualising how a block universe works, which is why I mentioned it. It's quite straightforward. It isn't rocket science. (Oh, wait...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
