Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
> > You seem innocent of how the drug cartels operate and just how violent
> they are.
>

I not only know they're very violent I know why they're violent. If
government made chocolate bars illegal the demand for chocolate bars would
not end and organizations would come into existance to fill that demand.
And the underground Hershey candy company and the underground Nestles candy
company couldn't sue each other in the courts and so would have no way to
settle disputes except through baseball bats and machine guns.

> Then who would ever want to live under a "free market system" if as you
> admit the transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well evolved free
> market?
>

There is no disputing matters of taste so you could say if you wished that
markets, and therefore people, shouldn't have too much freedom; but you
can't say that the Black Market isn't a free market.

 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/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>   --
>
>> >>> Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be
>>> taxed and taxed heavily
>>
>>
>> >> So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less
>> energy but will vote for politicians who force then to do so. I don't.
>>
>
> > Most people WILL voluntarily use less energy
>

If most people can use less energy, and most people want to use less
energy, then why don't most people use less energy; why isn't energy
consumption going down? And without cheap energy how are we going to fix
nitrogen from the air to fertilize the plants that 7 billion people eat.
And how are we going to fuel the farm equipment to harvest the crops? And
how are we going to refrigerate them? And how are we going to transport the
food from the farms to the cities where most of the people live?

  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/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming
> caused by increased CO2
>

If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying
the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era
there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380
today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact
during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far
more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm.

>> And then there is the important issue of global dimming, the world may
>> be getting warmer but it is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not
>> clearly understood but may be related to clouds, during the day at any
>> given temperature it takes longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50
>> years ago; climate models can't explain why it exists today much less know
>> if the effect will be larger or smaller in 2100.
>>
>
> > Sure they can.  It's due to increased aerosols and increased clouds.
> The IPCC AR4 models predict the increased cloudiness.


And what evidence can you provide that prove that particular climate model
makes better predictions than nineteen dozen other climate models?

> The uncertainty about cloud effects arises because low clouds and high
> clouds have different effects and the height of clouds is harder to predict.
>

If you're uncertain what the cloud cover will be in 2100 you're uncertain
about what the climate will be in 2100, it's as simple as that.

> It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing.
>

Plenty clear? During the Carboniferous era the Earth was not .8 degrees
warmer or even 4 degrees warmer but a massive 18 degrees warmer than now,
and yet plant life was far more abundant then than it is now.

> A lot more people die from starvation than freezing.
>

But more people die from freezing than heatstroke. And why do you thing the
ideal temperature to grow the most food occurs when the temperature is .8
degrees cooler than now when we know that when it was 18 degrees warmer
plants were more abundant than they've ever been before or sense?

>> Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a
>> cure for global warming that wasn't far worse than the disease, although
>> some non-environmentalists may have.
>>
>
> > There are plenty of good proposals from environmentalist.
>
>
> http://www.amyhremleyfoundation.org/php/education/impacts/NaturalCycles/PossibleRemedies.php
>

Where? As is customary for environmentalists all I see on that webpage is
what won't work, coal "generates the most CO2",  biofuels require extensive
crop lands which would worsen emissions by reducing forested areas", and
nuclear power  "suffers risk of some nations misusing the technology for
threat purposes"

>> In 2100 if we find that global warming is causing us serious trouble we
>> can deal with it then when out toolbox for fixing things will be vastly
>> larger than it is now.
>>
>
>
 > Yeah, we'll just fire up our tokomaks, cold fusion, and LFTRs and pump
> all that CO2 down the fracking wells, neutralize the ocean acidity and
> spray sulfur into the stratosphere.  What could be easier.
>

Cold fusion is bullshit but other than that you just may have a viable plan
there!

  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/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

Phew!

Problem solved!

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ON-British-boy-builds-fusion-reactor-080314st.html

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 18:16, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at
>>> all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
>>>
>>>
>>> *Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?
>>> *
>>>
>> If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending,
>>
>>  True; but I don't assume that.
>>
>>
> Since your original statement above only makes sense in some context -
> which you haven't revealed, as far as I can tell - perhaps you could tell
> us what you *are* assuming?
>
>
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that one could assume
> something different than QM and MWI.  For instance, start with MWI but then
> suppose that at each "branching" only one instance of you continues.
> Doesn't that accord with all experience?
>
>
You said  "*Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true
randomness?" - I don't understand what you mean by that, except given some
particular assumptions.*

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

Re: MODAL Last exercise

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Liz, meanwhile you might try this one, which is a bit more easy than the
> transitivity case:
>
> Show that (W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal.
>
> (I remind you that R is ideal means that there is no cul-de-sac world at
> all in (W,R)).
>

OK, I consult my diary and...

Ideal is as you say, yes! :-)

So []A -> <>A means that A is some proposition universally true in an
illuminated, accessible multiverse, and this implies that A is possible in
that multiverse.

Hang on I must be missing something. That seems trivially obvious! Maybe
you could point out what I've misunderstood here...

Let me try again.

[]p means that for any world alpha, p is true in all worlds accessible from
alpha. (Doesn't it? Well if p is a proposition, which might be 'x is false'
then that seems reasonable).

And <>p means that, ah, ~[]~p iirc. Which is to say it isn't true that
there is a world accessible from alpha in which ~p.

But isn't that implied by []p? I must have a definition wrong somewhere.


>
> Do you see that (W, R) is reflexive entails that (W,R) is ideal?   If all
> worlds access to themselves,  no world can be a cul-de-sac world, as a
> cul-de-sac world don't access to any world, including themselves.
>

Reflexive is alpha R alpha for all alpha, so no cul de sac is possible.

>
> 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/d/optout.

Re: MODAL Last exercise

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:31, LizR wrote:
>
> Let's take 3 worlds A B C making a minimal transitive multiverse. ARB and
> BRC implies ARC. So if we assume ARB and BRC we also get ARC
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>
> (if we don't assume this we don't have a multiverse or at least not one we
> can say anything about.
>
>
> This, or something like this ...
>
>
>
> []p in this case means the value of p in A is the same as its value in B
> and C (t or f).
>
>
> What if p is false in A, and true in all worlds accessible from A?
>
> Well that means ~[]p, doesn't it?

>
> This also means that in A B and C, []p is true, hence we can also say that
> in all worlds [][]p.
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
> (And indeed [][][]p and so on?)
>
>
> Sure. at least in a multiverse where []A -> [][]A is a law. In that case
> it is true for any A, and so it is true if A is substituted with []A, and
> so [][]A -> [][][]A, and so []A -> [][][]A, and so on.
>
>
>
>
> So it's true for the minimal case that []p -> [][]p
>
> But then adding more worlds will just give the same result in each set of
> 3... so does that prove it?
>
>
> Not sure.
>

Me neither, as will now be demonstrated.

>
>
>
> No, hang on. Take { A B C } with p having values { t t f }. []p is true in
> C, because C is not connected to anywhere else, which makes it trivially
> true if I remember correctly. But []p is false in A and B. So [][]p is
> false, even though []p is true in C. So []p being true in C doesn't imply
> [][]p.
>
>
> I might need to see your drawing. If C is not connected to anywhere else,
> C is a cul-de-sac world, and so we have certainly that [][]p is true in C
> (as []#anything# is true in all cul-de-sac worlds).
>
>
A ---> B ---> C

and

A ---> C

where ---> means 'can access' - so C is a cul-de-sac and { A B C } is
transitive.

OK, []X is true in C where X is anything.

So if []p isn't true in A, then [][]p isn't true for { A,B,C } (though it's
true in C treated as a multiverse)

But for []p to be true in A, that means p is true (or false) in all worlds
accessible from A, including C. That is, p has the same value in A B and C.
So does that imply []p is true in all worlds accessible from A? Yes, I
think so. And that implies [][]p for all worlds accessible from A,
including C (trivially).

Isn't that what I was trying to prove? Or have I just wandered off into a
cul-de-sac myself?

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:

On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at 
all? Or
is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?

*Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?
*

If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending,

True; but I don't assume that.

Since your original statement above only makes sense in some context - which you haven't 
revealed, as far as I can tell - perhaps you could tell us what you /are/ assuming?


I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that one could assume something different 
than QM and MWI.  For instance, start with MWI but then suppose that at each "branching" 
only one instance of you continues.  Doesn't that accord with all experience?


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/d/optout.

Re: MODAL Last exercise

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 21:44, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote:
>
> On 5 March 2014 20:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> You have to show two things:
>>
>> 1) R is transitive  ->  (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2) (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A->   R is transitive
>>
>> Let us look at "1)". To show that   "R is transitive  ->  (W,R) respects
>> []A -> [][]A", you might try to derive a contradiction from
>> R is transitive, and (W,R) does not respect []A -> [][]A.
>>
>> What does it mean that (W,R) does not respect a formula?  It can only
>> mean that in some (W,R,V) there is world alpha where that formula is false.
>> To say that "[]A->[][]A" is false in alpha means only that []A is true in
>> that world and that [][]A is false in that world.
>>
>
> OK. I'm not sure where V came from, but anyway...
>
>
> W = the set of worlds
> R = the binary relation (of accessibility)
>
> (W, R) = the multiverse, or the "frame"
>
> (W, R, V) is the same as the multiverse, except that now, in each worlds
> of W, the sentence letters p, q, r, ... got a value 1, or 0. And so, all
> formula can be said to be true or false in each world, by the use of
> classical logic and of the semantic of Kripke (the fact that []A is
> determined in alpha by the value of A in its accessible worlds).
>

So V is an illumination?

>
>
> So as you say a contradiction is t -> f (because f -> x is always true, as
> it t -> t)
>
>
> Like a tautology is true in all worlds, a contradiction is a proposition
> false in all worlds, like f, or (A & ~A), or "0 = 1" (in arithmetic). f ->
> x is a tautology, yes, and x -> t also.
>
>
>
> So []A is true in a world alpha.
>
>
> I guess you assume []A -> [][]A is false in alpha, which belong to a
> transitive multiverse, and you want to show that we will arrive at a
> contradiction.
>
>
>
> Hence if alpha is transitive,
>
>
> I understand what you mean. But of course it is R which is transitive.
>
>
>
> and if []A is true in all worlds reachable from alpha, let's call one
> beta, then []A is also true in all worlds reachable from beta.
>
>
> It looks like now you suppose []A -> [][]A is true in alpha. So I am no
> more sure of what you try to prove.
>
>
>
> We don't know if alpha is reachable from beta, but we do know that if []A
> is true in beta then it's true in all worlds reachable from beta.
>
>>
>> I let you or Brent continue, or anyone else. I don't want to spoil the
>> pleasure of finding the contradiction. Then we can discuss the "2)".
>>
>
> Surely the pleasure of NOT finding a contradiction?
>
>
> No, the pleasure of finding a contradiction from
> []A -> [][]A is false in alpha
> and
> R is transitive
>
> I was suggesting you to prove P -> Q, by showing that P & ~Q implies a
> contradiction. it is the easiest way, although there are (infinitely many)
> other ways to proceed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh dear I don't think my brain can take this!
>
> Maybe a diagram would help. Anyway I have to go now :)
>
>
>
> Diagram would help a lot. I teach this basically every years since a long
> time, and I only draw diagrams on the black board, not one symbols, except
> for the sentence letters true or false in the worlds.
>
> Take it easy, we have all the time. My feeling is that you are impatient
> with yourself. Just calm down.
>

It seems like I have no time! (But you sound like Charles :-)


> You will eventually NOT understand why you ever did find this difficult.
> But this takes times and work, that's normal.
>

I hope you're right.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each 
> viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each 
> observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
> confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
> independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other?
> 
> O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really 
> real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
> observers as being similar to himself?
> 
> Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems 
> awfully lonely
> 
> Edgar
> 

I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of
such a view.

An example of such a "reflection" is the conservation law of energy,
which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to
be invariant through time, ie a "reflection" of how we see the
world. See Noether's theorem.

To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical
property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive
the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard
of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective
consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external
ontological reality.

Cheers
-- 


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/d/optout.

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com

 

extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;

 

>>Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events
cause extinctions, not averages. 

Spudboy - or whatever your real name is; perhaps you don't realize it but
everything is caused by events - so that is a meaningless statement. Every
year, since the dawn of life on earth species have been going extinct and
species have been coming into existence. Perhaps you are not aware of just
how many species of life exist on this planet. There is nothing artificial,
nor unusual about graphing the rate of extinction over time. all manner of
phenomena are graphed over a time axis. That you find this strange and even
more seem to be implying that it is some kind of trick by evil greens really
makes me question your most basic understanding of math and statistics.

 

>>It's akin to saying of we added all the average dick lengths on Earth,
it'd reach 2/3rds to the Moon. An interesting topic, but unhelpful. 

Wrong! The rate of extinction - which is the number of species going extinct
in a given unit of time can be graphed so that we can compare past rates
with the current rate - which is 10,000 times what the rate has been on
average (as far as we can tell from studying the geologic, fossil and DNA
records) 

That you see no value in having a yardstick seems more likely due to the
ideological blinders you have covered your eyes with than with anything
else. It is either that or you are surprisingly ignorant of some very basic
math. I recommend you learn more about statistics and how it works before
making silly declarations like you just did.

 

>>Estimates of resources magically increase when money is involved. The
shale gas that was paltry in the US 10 years ago is now something the Greens
scream about, and Obama fears, (that's ideology for you). 

Again you do not know what you are talking about. you are sadly misinformed.
I could argue it with you, but I do not even think you could understand the
evidence given your poor display of understanding of basic statistics.. So
why bother. Suffice to say that the Shale gas and oil plays, besides doing
great and irreparable harm to our earth are in fact just bubbles that will
soon burst (and in fact already show signs of doing just that) - it is all
spin, PR and BS, pulling in all that sucker money - the essence of any
bubble. The insiders are making huge killings no doubt, and they are
probably already pulling their money now if they have not already. The
drillers made a killing for a few years, some people made good salaries,
again for a while.

But if anyone - who understands numbers and statistics (which I fear may
exclude you) - carefully examines certain key metrics such as rates od
decline; how many years of peak well production before the decline sets in;
capital cost per unit of product; energy return on energy invested (EROI) -
for all the formations, but especially for the most mature formation - the
Eagle-Ford in Texas. What one will discover - if one looks and I do
challenge you to look - is that the boom is unsustainable and that after
investing huge numbers of billions of dollars in what are capital sinkholes
that the long term payback for that capital will never occur, because the
assumptions for fracked gas and shale oil were exceedingly optimistic -
based on historic production data from traditional gas & oil fields. Fracked
fields begin going into depletion very rapidly - and wells need to be
re-fracked as well (which changes the economics considerably) And when
decline sets in the rate of decline is much higher than it is for
traditional fields.

Again I challenge anyone to look for themselves. Recently there is growing
evidence that there is a building pullback in the capital expenditure - at
the upstream end of the project pipelines - so it takes years to play out.
The return on capital expenditures or in finance jargon CAPEX - in terms of
the market value of the produced product versus how much capital
expenditures were needed in order to develop, refine and deliver the product
are really very bad, and in general has been rapidly falling for all energy
CAPEX as a rule. again you can look these things up.

So say whatever BS you have been fed to say - hey it's a free country right?
LOL - but the real world hard numbers tell a very different story from the
politically useful fantasy you have been sold.

 

>>Its just that the Atlantic plays that Petrobas was counting on, were nuked
by US shale gas and oil development. 

You really have no idea do you. Those projects are at the extreme edge of
what is technically possible - the deep water field off of Brazil is under 2
km of water then another 5 km of salt rock if I recall. And at great expense
they have drilled some wells and the results have been shall we say
disappointing - they are g

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
>> Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
>>
>>
>> *Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness? *
>>
>>
> If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending,
>
>  True; but I don't assume that.
>
>
Since your original statement above only makes sense in some context -
which you haven't revealed, as far as I can tell - perhaps you could tell
us what you *are* assuming?

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of
> using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter
> how good a microscope or telescope we make.
>
> That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is
> just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space
> is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful
>

The point was that in Mach's time that wasn't the case. So at the time
there was no ontological difference, and I was making the comparison with
Mach at the time. You have to understand the context when you attempt to
answer someone else's points.

Atoms were, however, our best explanation at the time for various
observations, just as space is our best explanation for certain
observations now. And as even Brent has now agreed, we don't observe
anything directly - atoms, space-time or whatever, so the whole argument
that space doesn't exist because we don't observe it begs the question of
what we do actually observe.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 14:50, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>
>>
>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception,
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of
>> explanation.
>>
>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains
> (another hypothesis).
>
>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they
> don't exist."
>
> Then I agree with your point.
>

Good, so I assume you agree that Edgar isn't refuting the existence of
space by saying we never observe it directly, for the reasons stated (we
don't observe anything directly). Phew.

>
> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's
> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the
> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic
> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time
> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from
> there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and
> say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really*
> just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain."
>

Well, it's all hypothetical. This is fascinating subject to discuss
somewhere, but I was just trying to answer the original statement made by
Edgar - to show that the same logic would unravel all of physics, which is
why we generally have to make tacit assumptions.


>   And Bohr was right when he said that the classical world was
> *epistemologically* prior to the quantum world.
>

That would be because humans perceive the world in a classical manner, I
imagine?

>
> Brent
> You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
> got to make it out of.
>--- Robert Penn Warren
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how
> minds work...
>
>
> So these consensus views are correct on everything  except space? I'm
sure I can think of some technology based on the assumption that space
exists. Actually It's hard to think of one that isn't.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:13:39 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
> using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
> how good a microscope or telescope we make.
>
 
We can't. It's actually impossible to see an atom, because it's smaller 
than the smallest wavelength of visible light. We can see little 
bumps instead of the atom.  

>
>
> That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
> just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
> is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful
>
 
A particle collider gets to see subatomic particles, but only in 
extraordinary circumstances.
 
But atoms are almost entirely thin air, so where does that leave atoms on 
your theory? Sub atomic particles almost entirely thin air too. Such that 
Liz had that really good insight recently, which you picked up and 
complemented her on.
 
Where does this think air thing begin and end? 

>  
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 2:13:39 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
> using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
> how good a microscope or telescope we make.
>
> That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
> just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
> is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful
>
> Agree?
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>  
>>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 All, 

  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
 universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and 
 observers.

  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
 whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
 is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
 observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
 never observations of empty space itself.
  
>>>
>>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>>   
>>>
>>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>>> explanation.
>>>  
>>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
>> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
>> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
>> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
>> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence 
>> of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for 
>> what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
>> (another hypothesis).
>>
>>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they 
>> don't exist."
>>   
>>
>> Then I agree with your point.
>>
>> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's 
>> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the 
>> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic 
>> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time 
>> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from 
>> there. 
>>
>  
 
Yes and No. You do have to start from there if that's what your brain 
already sees. But that doesn't mean you have to base your theory on what 
your brain already sees. You could reason something like "if all of that in 
my head is hard coded what my brain sees, then what else is hard coded 
along with it, I haven't realized, but that would get built into my theory? 
" 
 
If you reasoned like that, you could have the idea that "I can build a 
rules based method approach to starting my theory that absolutely minimizes 
the dependencies on that shit in my head" 

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

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Stephen Paul King]

Dear Russel and Kim,

  I remember fondly when the translation of Bruno's thesis was being 
discussed. I am very happy to see the results of your hard work. Thank you 
for doing this! I will be buying a copy of it asap. :-)


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:43:05 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, 
>
> Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno 
> Marchal's "The Amoeba's Secret" is now available from Amazon's Kindle 
> store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA 
>
>
> The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the 
> prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD 
> thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book 
> not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript 
> available from Bruno's website. 
>
> The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's 
> UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background 
> motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, 
> after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished 
> the translation of this book into English. 
>
> For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version 
> will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a 
> physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for 
> general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are 
> entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the 
> best of both worlds. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful

Agree?

Edgar


On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>  
>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they 
> don't exist."
>   
>
> Then I agree with your point.
>
> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's 
> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the 
> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic 
> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time 
> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from 
> there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and 
> say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* 
> just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain."  And Bohr was right when he 
> said that the classical world was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum 
> world.
>
> Brent
> You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
> got to make it out of. 
>--- Robert Penn Warren
>  

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
 


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Chris de Morsella  wrote:



> Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to see you try 
> to get into the hard drug distribution black market

>>Just curious, is there any particular reason you think I haven't already done 
>>so?

Well, you are alive and -- I assume are not writing your posts from a federal 
prison somewhere.

 
> hopefully not getting killed in the process

>>Thank you for your concern.  


You seem innocent of how the drug cartels operate and just how violent they are.



> It [the Black Market] is a global oligopoly 

I know.


> dominated by a few trans-national drug gangs 

I know.


> if you think that this is an exemplar of free market


>> I do. 


Then who would ever want to live under a "free market system" if as you admit 
the transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well evolved free market?


> I have to really question what your idea of freedom is.

>> The ability to buy anything if the seller and buyer can agree on a price.

A strange notion of the meaning of freedom.
Chris

 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/d/optout
.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Ghibbsa,

I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In my 
view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely computational 
in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space. 

The results of these computations are the information states of the 
universe, and so called physical reality is how minds model that 
information universe to make it more meaningful and easier to survive 
within...

In this view the reality of the physical world in which we think we exist 
is ITS INFORMATION ONLY, and all things are their information only. With 
practice it is possible to directly experience this by actually seeing that 
everything is actually its information components, and that only.

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>>
>>
>> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
>> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
>> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
>> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
>> plus observation.
>>
>  
> I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
> the 'Mirror Pair'
>
>>
>>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty 
>>> space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such 
>>> an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>>> internal models of it.
>>>
>>  
>  
>  
> I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
> different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
> being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
> real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
> world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
> reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
> seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
> end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
> design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 
>  
> Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
> relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
> If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
> density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
> what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
> the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
> real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
> has to arrange like?  
>  
> It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
> That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
> proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
> physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
> are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
> very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
> dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
> to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
> because physical reality wasn't there. 
>  
>
>>
>>>  
>>
>  
>
>>  
>>
>>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

I agree that we can use our OBSERVATIONS of the dimensional relationships 
of particulate events to construct a meaningful THEORY of space. Newton did 
it. But Einstein found that it really didn't quite work out and came up 
with a new theory. But now we know that doesn't quite work out either and 
we need a new theory that unifies QT and GR and resolves quantum paradox.

So now I suggest a new THEORY to address these problems. So NO, I am NOT 
confusing observation and theory. I'm going back to the actual ontological 
nature of the actual observations and working from there towards a new 
theory of dimensional space.

And I claim that though the OBSERVATIONS are empirical and repeatable, that 
the THEORY of space is a logico-mathematical construct or edifice, rather 
than anything physical.

Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:37:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> >> Brent, 
> >> 
> >> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
> empirical 
> >> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> >> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon 
> it 
> >> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> >> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
> how 
> >> minds work... 
> > How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations 
> > agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are 
> > more less similar to each other? 
>
> And looking at different things?  If we're similar to each other, then 
> similarity of 
> observation implies similarity of the observed. But I think Edgar is 
> confounding 
> "observations" with "theories", or he's not allowing for the different 
> degrees in which 
> theories contribute to observations.  We're very different from Nagel's 
> bat, so we don't 
> perceive the elasticity to objects with our vision as a bat does with 
> sonar.  But we both 
> form a three dimensional model of space. 
>
> Brent 
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:46:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
> His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't 
> exist."
>
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>>
wrote:

All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
universal
fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.

Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
whatsoever.
We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is 
interactions
between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE
interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never 
observations of
empty space itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and
energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
hypothetically the
reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
different
levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the 
other. The
interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation 
of words
on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty 
concrete and
direct.  On a physical model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor 
atoms are
being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural 
signals into my
brain."  Or eschewing physicalism, "Information merging into my thought 
processes
via preception, instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer 
screen"."...which
pretty much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A 
circle of
explanation.

My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the existence of space. 
He argued that we never observe space directly, and goes on to suggest that therefore we 
can't assume it exists. I merely pointed out that the same logic applies to all 
observations, and therefore we can't assume /*from observation*/ that anything exists. 
The existence of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for 
what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains (another 
hypothesis).


His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't 
exist."


Then I agree with your point.

But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's certainly not brain 
functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the world that's hardwired into us by 
evolution such that we see macroscopic objects that have definite positions and we 
directly experience time lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to 
start from there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and 
say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* just a pattern 
of neurons firing in my brain."  And Bohr was right when he said that the classical world 
was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum world.


Brent
You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
got to make it out of.
   --- Robert Penn Warren

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, each 
viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model each 
observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the other?

O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is really 
real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
observers as being similar to himself?

Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it seems 
awfully lonely

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:36:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
> > similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get 
> different 
> > answers 
> > 
> > Edgar 
>
> Perhaps the "similar thing" is a mere reflection of the observers 
> observing. 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>> assumption.
>>
>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>
>
> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
> plus observation.
>
 
I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
the 'Mirror Pair'

>
>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space 
>> because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an 
>> empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>> internal models of it.
>>
>  
 
 
I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 
 
Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
has to arrange like?  
 
It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
because physical reality wasn't there. 
 

>
>>  
>
 

>  
>
>

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
not, we are trying to find the truth

First, note you don't actually have to calculate anything. A and C just 
compare clocks when they meet and that gives the actual world line lengths.

But, if you want to calculate to predict what that comparison will be, then 
you have to be careful to do it correctly.

C can't just use the Pythagorean theorem on A's world line from his 
perspective on the x and y distances, he has to use it on the time 
dimension as well squareroot((y2-y1)^2 + (x2-x1)^2 - c(t2-t1)^2). It is the 
subtraction of this time term that will reduce the length of the slanting 
blue lines of A and B to THEIR PROJECTIONS ON C'S OWN WORLDLINE.

I think that is what you are saying as well, but my point is that that 
NULLIFIES any effect on the length of the world lines by the SLANTING of 
the blue lines NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LENGTHS, and LEAVES ONLY the effects of 
the red curves.

This must be the case because NON-accelerated relative motion DOES NOT 
affect proper time rates. This is because it is exactly the same from the 
perspective of A and C moving relative to each other, thus it cannot affect 
the lengths of their world lines.

I'm trying to parse your last paragraph. Your diagram shows ONLY how A's 
and B's world lines appear in C's comoving frame. It does NOT show the 
proper LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines. I think we agree the lengths 
depicted are NOT the actual world line lengths.

I claim the blue slanting lines of A and B, one set longer than the other, 
have NO EFFECT on the actual lengths of A's and B's world lines. Because 
when we calculate just their proper lengths subtracting the time term as I 
do above, their proper lengths reduce to their VERTICAL PROJECTIONS on C's 
vertical world line. In other words there is no difference in proper time 
rates of A, B or C during the intervals of the slanting blue lines.

Thus, in my view, we are left with ONLY the effects of the curving red 
accelerations, and these are exactly the same for A and B. And when the 
lengths of those red acceleration segments are calculated we find that A's 
and B's world lines will both be SHORTER than C's world line AND by the 
SAME AMOUNT and that A's and B's world line lengths will be EQUAL due only 
to their equal accelerations.


Perhaps to make this clearer consider just two blue lines of A and B 
slanted with respect to each other and crossing at P. From A's perspective 
B's line will be slanted, but from B's perspective A's line will be slanted 
in the other direction by an equal amount AND since this is NON-accelerated 
inertial motion only, both views are EQUALLY VALID. When we do the 
Pythagorean world line length calculation we get EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS 
from both frame views. So both world line lengths are exactly equal.

Thus slanted blue lines of ANY LENGTH have NO EFFECT AT ALL on world line 
lengths, and only curved red line accelerations do.

If you disagree I can give you another example.

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:26:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the 
> typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
>
> E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A&
>
> ...

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 4:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it
would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some
actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how
minds work...

How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations
agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are
more less similar to each other?


And looking at different things?  If we're similar to each other, then similarity of 
observation implies similarity of the observed. But I think Edgar is confounding 
"observations" with "theories", or he's not allowing for the different degrees in which 
theories contribute to observations.  We're very different from Nagel's bat, so we don't 
perceive the elasticity to objects with our vision as a bat does with sonar.  But we both 
form a three dimensional model of space.


Brent

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:02:51 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
 All,

 An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
 universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and 
 observers.

 Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
 whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
 is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
 observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
 never observations of empty space itself.

>>>
>>> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
>>> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>>
>>
>> There are interactions inside our brains, but that doesn't mean that 
>> those interactions are literally our observations. It's not a fact, it's an 
>> assumption, and one which clearly has problems once you scratch beneath the 
>> surface.
>>
>
> Yes, but the point is that there's a hierarchy of assumptions here. I was 
> just pointing to the next level down. Going deeper doesn't invalidate 
> Edgar's point any more than the fact of the first level does.
>

Going deeper invalidates both your points, because although observations of 
matter and energy and observations of interactions inside our brain can 
both be doubted, the fact that we observe something and make some sense of 
it cannot be doubted. If we start from there - from sense, then everything 
else falls into place.

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

Re: Block Universes

[LizR]

This is why time has a minus sign in SR. (I believe the usual way this
informally is put is that the space-traveller "trades space for time".)


On 8 March 2014 13:26, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
>> typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
>>
>> E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line
>> looks longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>
> Are you actually reading my posts carefully all the way through, or just
> skimming them or something? I spent a whole extended section of my post
> discussing just this point, read it again:
>
> 'It is true that if you just look at the spatial lengths of each path on
> the diagram, the ratio between the spatial lengths doesn't actually match
> up with the ratio between the proper times that would be calculated using
> relativity. If you use any Cartesian spatial coordinate system to draw x-y
> axes on the diagram, then you can use this coordinate system to assign x
> and y coordinates to the endpoints of any straight blue segment, x1 and y1
> for one endpoint and x2 and y2 for the other, and then calculate the
> spatial length of that segment using the Pythagorean theorem:
> squareroot[(y2 - y1)^2 + (x2 - x1)^2]. Note that you ADD the squares of the
> two terms in parentheses when calculating spatial length, but my earlier
> equation showed that you SUBTRACT the square of the two terms in
> parentheses when calculating proper time, which explains why this sort of
> spatial path length on a spacetime diagram can be misleading. For example,
> in spatial terms a straight line is the SHORTEST path between two points,
> but in spacetime a straight (constant-velocity) worldline is the one with
> the LARGEST proper time between points.
>
> Nevertheless, the math for calculating the invariant spatial path length
> using a Cartesian coordinate system is closely analogous to the math for
> calculating the invariant proper time using an inertial frame. The diagrams
> show the spatial length of the paths being different despite identical red
> acceleration segments, and this remains true if you actually calculate
> proper time, even though in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the
> opposite of how it works with spatial lengths.'
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:15:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jesse,
>>>
>>> Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
>>> posts.
>>>
>>> I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
>>> argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to
>>> the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line.
>>> Thus the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world
>>> line according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's
>>> clock which is what this diagram shows.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by "the length according to C's
>>> clock"--are you just talking about the numbers on the vertical time axis,
>>> 2000-2020? That axis represents the coordinate time in C's rest frame, and
>>> obviously the coordinate time between "2000" at the bottom of the diagram
>>> and "2020" at the top is 20 years regardless of what path you're talking
>>> about, so I don't see how it makes sense to call this the "length" of any
>>> particular path. But you can also use C's
>>> ...
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:08:39 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> I feel there's a category error here somewhere...
>
> I wonder what the Dalai Lama would make of "Brave New World" ?
>
 
I think he'd make another killing out of it, on the LA lunch circuit . I 
don't really buy that guy. Don't see a lot in the eye.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological
> assumption.
>
> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic
> from what we can observe. That is true.
>

It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience
indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but
even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time,
our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic
plus observation.

>
> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space
> because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an
> empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous
> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and
> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our
> internal models of it.
>
> Or that anything else does. Yes, that's correct, my point was that you
can't single out space for this treatment.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>
>
> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two
> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk
> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical
> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer
> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say
> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in
> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing
> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception,
> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty
> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of
> explanation.
>
> My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the
existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and
goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely
pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore
we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of
space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what
happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains
(another hypothesis).

His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't
exist."

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

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 2:38:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to you. 
> You have my greatest sympathies. 
>
>
> Thanks Liz. Actually I think we are all victims of this sad and so much 
> contingent happening. Without it, perhaps I would have published more 
> early, and that work would be better known and perhaps already refuted, and 
> I would not be here torturing you with those exercises in modal logic and 
> self-reference. Or it would be confirmed, and you would take my word for 
> granted, or you would have already studied it, and in that case, I would 
> again not force you into those arcane logic exercises right now. Or like I 
> said, I would have been a mathematical logician, and would not yet find the 
> time to come back to my real interest, and that too would have prevented me 
> to convince you to do logic.
> Well, we never know. I guess those things are like that in some alternate 
> reality.
>
>
>
> (I too have been susceptible to manipulation, as I am rather shy and 
> awkward in person, so I speak from experience.) 
>
>
> You have my sympathy. It is alas very frequent. In Belgium, I read a 
> report according to which moral harassment is a plea, with 1/20 of the 
> population direct victim of it. Of course there are different degrees. 
>
>
>
> I am very eager to obtain a copy of "the Amoeba's Secret", even more than 
> I was before, but I prefer a hard copy to the electronic so I will wait a 
> little longer. I will be telling my friends and acquaintances who I think 
> may have an interest about it too, of course.
>
>
> Thanks, kind regards,
>
> Bruno
>
 
 
Well I shall certainly be reading your book which I just browsed. So kind 
that Russel translated for you. Kim Too, editing. 
 
my two comments from the sample chapter is I knew fear was in this 
somewhere (of death). And too much amoeba talk. If you want to gas on about 
amoeba's name your book something more appropriate. 
 
 

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:23:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
> similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different 
> answers
> 
> Edgar

Perhaps the "similar thing" is a mere reflection of the observers observing.


-- 


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/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
> typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
>
> E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line
> looks longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
>
> Edgar
>

Are you actually reading my posts carefully all the way through, or just
skimming them or something? I spent a whole extended section of my post
discussing just this point, read it again:

'It is true that if you just look at the spatial lengths of each path on
the diagram, the ratio between the spatial lengths doesn't actually match
up with the ratio between the proper times that would be calculated using
relativity. If you use any Cartesian spatial coordinate system to draw x-y
axes on the diagram, then you can use this coordinate system to assign x
and y coordinates to the endpoints of any straight blue segment, x1 and y1
for one endpoint and x2 and y2 for the other, and then calculate the
spatial length of that segment using the Pythagorean theorem:
squareroot[(y2 - y1)^2 + (x2 - x1)^2]. Note that you ADD the squares of the
two terms in parentheses when calculating spatial length, but my earlier
equation showed that you SUBTRACT the square of the two terms in
parentheses when calculating proper time, which explains why this sort of
spatial path length on a spacetime diagram can be misleading. For example,
in spatial terms a straight line is the SHORTEST path between two points,
but in spacetime a straight (constant-velocity) worldline is the one with
the LARGEST proper time between points.

Nevertheless, the math for calculating the invariant spatial path length
using a Cartesian coordinate system is closely analogous to the math for
calculating the invariant proper time using an inertial frame. The diagrams
show the spatial length of the paths being different despite identical red
acceleration segments, and this remains true if you actually calculate
proper time, even though in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the
opposite of how it works with spatial lengths.'




>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:15:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
>> posts.
>>
>> I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
>> argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to
>> the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you
>> claim.
>>
>> The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus
>> the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line
>> according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock
>> which is what this diagram shows.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by "the length according to C's
>> clock"--are you just talking about the numbers on the vertical time axis,
>> 2000-2020? That axis represents the coordinate time in C's rest frame, and
>> obviously the coordinate time between "2000" at the bottom of the diagram
>> and "2020" at the top is 20 years regardless of what path you're talking
>> about, so I don't see how it makes sense to call this the "length" of any
>> particular path. But you can also use C's
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

Sure, but that only works if what the similar minds observe is also 
similar. If similar minds observe different things they will get different 
answers

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:23:46 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
> empirical 
> > observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> > accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon 
> it 
> > would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> > actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
> how 
> > minds work... 
>
> How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations 
> agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are 
> more less similar to each other? 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the 
typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?

E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks 
longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER?

Edgar





On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:15:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your 
> posts.
>
> I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would 
> argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to 
> the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you 
> claim.
>
> The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus 
> the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line 
> according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock 
> which is what this diagram shows.
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "the length according to C's 
> clock"--are you just talking about the numbers on the vertical time axis, 
> 2000-2020? That axis represents the coordinate time in C's rest frame, and 
> obviously the coordinate time between "2000" at the bottom of the diagram 
> and "2020" at the top is 20 years regardless of what path you're talking 
> about, so I don't see how it makes sense to call this the "length" of any 
> particular path. But you can also use C's 
> ...

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:02:46PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
> 
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
> minds work...

How does this follow? Couldn't it be possible that our observations
agree (more or less) with each other because we (as observers) are
more less similar to each other?

-- 


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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological assumption.

There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
from what we can observe. That is true.

But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space 
because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an 
empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
internal models of it.

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:08:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to 
>> discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational 
>> reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
>>
>> But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. 
>> When you do you don't get solipsism.
>>
>> If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN 
>> MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply 
>> to my theories but to all science
>>
>
> That's right, that's my point. That's why we can't just say "we never 
> directly observe X" to invalidate any of our existing hypotheses. We make 
> ontological assumptions - you can't just start by saying THIS particular 
> fact isn't true because we have made a hypothesis about it, because if we 
> do that, by contagion we have to doubt all of our hypotheses.
>
> Hence you can't start from the basis that...
>
> "Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever. 
> We NEVER observe such an empty space. "
>
> ...without casting doubt on all our hypotheses based on observations.
>
> Instead you will have to find some other reason to show that space doesn't 
> exist (assuming it doesn't).
>
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
minds work...

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All, 
>>
>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>  
>
>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>   
>
> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
> explanation.
>
> Brent
>
>   
>  The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>
>  
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are 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/d/optout.
>
>
>  

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:42:57 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* John Clark >
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:39 AM
> *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>  
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> 
> > wrote:
>
> > The biggest energy source we have available in fact is energy efficiency.
>
>
> >>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, 
> but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity 
> like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody 
> invented a gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would 
> not cut in half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would 
> fly more often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger 
> more comfortable seats. 
>
> That is a failure of the markets. If energy efficiency marginally lowers 
> the rate of consumption of fossil (and other) energy resources thus 
> increasing the available current supply -- because we almost exclusively 
> rely on these short term market price signals to determine 
> consumption/production -- demand will tend to rise. This is well known 
> paradoxically in effect punishing virtue and rewarding a self centered 
> I-don't-give-a-damn mentality of consuming every resource as fast as 
> possible.
> Over the long term this will lead to our species discovering what the 
> meaning of going over a cliff really is in the hardest of hard terms -- up 
> to and including species extinction.
> Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed 
> and taxed heavily -- IMO. This is the other side of encouraging conserving 
> these critical and non-renewable resources. Take phosphate for example -- 
> the world is running out of the economically recoverable sources -- mined 
> principally from just three sources: in Morocco (land seized by Morocco 
> actually) , Florida, and if I recall somewhere in Russia. There is no 
> incentive to conserve this vital resource and global supplies seem to have 
> already peaked. Phosphorous is a critical ingredient of fertilizers.
> Relying on market signals alone to determine how -- and at what pace -- 
> finite resources are consumed is a recipe for disaster. The market will 
> encourage us to burn through these resources as fast as we can, which is 
> precisely what our species is doing.
> Not the wisest course of action though, and a clear example of how the 
> market mechanism is sending our civilization over the cliff.
>
 
Not you John, but this argument above that somehow made it past the John 
Clark check point, it's really one of the most gormless market 
orientations. We can't leave energy decided by the market, we have to 
ensure rising supply which means sustainable. This is because GDP is hard 
linked to energy consumptions, and that 'market adjustment' you were just 
talking about is what's known as a recession.
 
Are you American? I thought you were English. This is the sort of ideology 
frazzled agenda peddling puke I'd normally associate with neoconservatives. 

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

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[chris peck]

Hi Bruno

>> With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different vocabulary. 

Really?

the last time I quoted her:


"What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: 
whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. 
So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with 
certainty) expect to see spin-down."

Quentin said:

"That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact."

And you agreed with Quentin:


"Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. "

Are you saying you now actually agree with Greaves and that assigning 
probability 1 to both outcomes is in fact correct?


Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:40:53 -0800
From: ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:I'm not sure I follow. 
Tegmark said "If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times 
and 
wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find 
that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with 
zeros occurring about 50% of the time."
 Did Tegmark really say that? I don't believe it. And he just deemed tell us 
the nature of mathematics. Of course they look random - they are hexadecimal 
translations. or very different bases anyway. Of course the bloody average 1's 
about 50% of the time, as well as 0's. It's binary. Which works by flipping.
That seems to me to be correct. If you do the experiment 4 times you get the 
sequences I typed out before, except I seem to have accidentally doubled up! 
The correct sequences should read:


  0001  0010  0011  0100  0101  0110  0111  1000  1001  1010  1011  1100  
1101  1110  

Depending on how you decide something looks random, I'd say quite a few of 
those sequences do. And 0s do occur 50% of the time overall, for sure.


binary relates to other bases simple if the other base is in the series 2^n, 
and arithmetically otherwise. For example, convert the following to hexadecimal 
without a calculator, in two steps only.  1101101100111111  
it's 2^n so easy peasy. Just copy the sequence below, then with your cursor 
break the copy up into sets of four.  1101      1010  0001  0011   1100 
 0011  the right to left column value of binary goes 1,2,4,8 so putting it 
round the same way as the binary that's 8, 4, 2, 1.  So if you have 1101 and 
you want to convert to hex, you jusmultiply the value in each binary column by 
1 or 2 or 4, or 8 depending on its position. So 1101 would be 1x8 + 1x4 + 0x2 + 
1x1 = 15 in decimal which counts in 10's. But hex counts in 16's, replacing 
everything aftter 10 with a letter of the alphabet, thus 15d --> Eh I just 
taught a lot of people how to suck eggs right there. But maybe there was ONE 
person that wasn't 100% and is glad to now know hex :o)   I guess the sloppy 
phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in most sequences? I don't know 
if that is true (it's true for 6 of the 16 sequences above) or if it becomes 
more true (or almost true) with longer sequences. Maybe a mathematician can 
enlighten me?
 Yeah it's basically a load of bollocks any much significance as it's an 
archetype of the base and all the translations intrinsic in most 
implementations. Ask why the pattern doesn't remain constant through the bases, 
allowing for translation.  

I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the chapters 
I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make his subject matter 
seem more accessible.
 "...I will describe..[reality from math] the greatest most large infinity 
of all the others to date" is what sticks in my mind. First time I read that, 
it put me on the floor. 




-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said "If you repeated the cloning 
> experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each 
> time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones 
> you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time."
>
 
Did Tegmark really say that? I don't believe it. And he just deemed tell us 
the nature of mathematics. Of course they look random - 
they are hexadecimal translations. or very different bases anyway. Of 
course the bloody average 1's about 50% of the time, as well as 0's. It's 
binary. Which works by flipping. 
 
 
 

>
> That seems to me to be correct. If you do the experiment 4 times you get 
> the sequences I typed out before, except I seem to have accidentally 
> doubled up! The correct sequences should read:
>
> *  0001  0010  0011  0100  0101  0110  0111  1000  1001  1010  1011  
> 1100  1101  1110  *
>
> Depending on how you decide something looks random, I'd say quite a few of 
> those sequences do. And 0s do occur 50% of the time overall, for sure.
>
> binary relates to other bases simple if the other base is in the series 
2^n, and arithmetically otherwise. For example, convert the following to 
hexadecimal without a calculator, in two steps only. 
 
1101101100111111 
 
it's 2^n so easy peasy. Just copy the sequence below, then with your cursor 
break the copy up into sets of four. 
 
1101      1010  0001  0011   1100  0011 
 
the right to left column value of binary goes 1,2,4,8 so putting it round 
the same way as the binary that's 8, 4, 2, 1.  So if you have 1101 and you 
want to convert to hex, you jusmultiply the value in each binary column by 
1 or 2 or 4, or 8 depending on its position. So 1101 would be 1x8 + 1x4 + 
0x2 + 1x1 = 15 in decimal which counts in 10's. But hex counts in 16's, 
replacing everything aftter 10 with a letter of the alphabet, thus 15d --> 
Eh
 
I just taught a lot of people how to suck eggs right there. But maybe there 
was ONE person that wasn't 100% and is glad to now know hex :o) 
 
 

> I guess the sloppy phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in most 
> sequences? I don't know if that is true (it's true for 6 of the 16 
> sequences above) or if it becomes more true (or almost true) with longer 
> sequences. Maybe a mathematician can enlighten me?
>
 
Yeah it's basically a load of bollocks any much significance as it's an 
archetype of the base and all the translations intrinsic in most 
implementations. Ask why the pattern doesn't remain constant through the 
bases, allowing for translation.  

>
> I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the 
> chapters I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make his 
> subject matter seem more accessible.
>
 
"...I will describe..[reality from math] the greatest most large 
infinity of all the others to date" is what sticks in my mind. First time I 
read that, it put me on the floor. 

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
> posts.
>
> I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
> argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to
> the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you
> claim.
>
> The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus
> the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line
> according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock
> which is what this diagram shows.
>

I don't understand what you mean by "the length according to C's
clock"--are you just talking about the numbers on the vertical time axis,
2000-2020? That axis represents the coordinate time in C's rest frame, and
obviously the coordinate time between "2000" at the bottom of the diagram
and "2020" at the top is 20 years regardless of what path you're talking
about, so I don't see how it makes sense to call this the "length" of any
particular path. But you can also use C's rest frame to assign x and t
coordinates to the endpoints of any straight blue segment, x1 and t1 for
one endpoint and x2 and t2 for the other, and then C can calculate the
proper time along that segment as squareroot[(t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2] and
get the correct INVARIANT answer (note that I am using units of light-years
and years where c=1 so it doesn't appear in the equation, otherwise the
second term in the square root would have to be (1/c^2)*(x2 - x1)^2).

What the diagram is trying to show is that even though the different paths
have identical red acceleration curves, they have different SPATIAL
lengths, i.e. the length you'd measure if you printed out the diagram and
laid a flexible cloth tape measure along each path to measure the distance
ALONG THE PATH between the point at the bottom of the diagram where the
paths diverge and the point at the top where they rejoin. It is true that
if you just look at the spatial lengths of each path on the diagram, the
ratio between the spatial lengths doesn't actually match up with the ratio
between the proper times that would be calculated using relativity. If you
use any Cartesian spatial coordinate system to draw x-y axes on the
diagram, then you can use this coordinate system to assign x and y
coordinates to the endpoints of any straight blue segment, x1 and y1 for
one endpoint and x2 and y2 for the other, and then calculate the spatial
length of that segment using the Pythagorean theorem: squareroot[(y2 -
y1)^2 + (x2 - x1)^2]. Note that you ADD the squares of the two terms in
parentheses when calculating spatial length, but my earlier equation showed
that you SUBTRACT the square of the two terms in parentheses when
calculating proper time, which explains why this sort of spatial path
length on a spacetime diagram can be misleading. For example, in spatial
terms a straight line is the SHORTEST path between two points, but in
spacetime a straight (constant-velocity) worldline is the one with the
LARGEST proper time between points.

Nevertheless, the math for calculating the invariant spatial path length
using a Cartesian coordinate system is closely analogous to the math for
calculating the invariant proper time using an inertial frame. The diagrams
show the spatial length of the paths being different despite identical red
acceleration segments, and this remains true if you actually calculate
proper time, even though in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the
opposite of how it works with spatial lengths. If you assign time
coordinates to the beginning and end of each acceleration phase, and you
specify the proper acceleration involved, then you can calculate the proper
time along elapsed on each worldline during both the acceleration phases
(using the relativistic rocket equations given at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html ) as well
as the proper time during the constant-velocity phases (using the method I
mentioned above with squareroot[(t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2] for each
segment). If you do this, you do find that in a detailed numerical version
of the scenario in the diagram, A ELAPSES LESS TOTAL PROPER TIME THAN B
DESPITE HAVING IDENTICAL ACCELERATIONS. I can give the detailed
calculations using the relativistic rocket equations if you want, or you
can just take my word for it.



>
> So to calculate the length of A's and B's world lines in C's frame (which
> this diagram represents) we must take the apparent lengths as shown from
> C's frame view on the diagram, and SHORTEN each section by the apparent
> slowing of ITS CLOCK relative to C's CLOCK.
>

Yes, that would be another way to calculate proper time along the blue
constant-velocity segments: just take the times t2 and t1 of the beginning
and end of each segment in C's frame, and multiply by the time dilation
factor which depends on the speed v in C's f

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 10:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to
> discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational
> reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.
>
> But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact.
> When you do you don't get solipsism.
>
> If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN
> MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply
> to my theories but to all science
>

That's right, that's my point. That's why we can't just say "we never
directly observe X" to invalidate any of our existing hypotheses. We make
ontological assumptions - you can't just start by saying THIS particular
fact isn't true because we have made a hypothesis about it, because if we
do that, by contagion we have to doubt all of our hypotheses.

Hence you can't start from the basis that...

"Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation whatsoever.
We NEVER observe such an empty space. "

...without casting doubt on all our hypotheses based on observations.

Instead you will have to find some other reason to show that space doesn't
exist (assuming it doesn't).

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>> wrote:

All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
universal fixed
pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.

Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
whatsoever. We
NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is interactions 
between
particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE interactions of
particulate matter or energy, they are never observations of empty space 
itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and energy, 
either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, hypothetically the reception of 
nerve signals by our brain cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two different levels of 
description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the other.  The interactions 
inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer 
screen. "I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty concrete and direct. On a physical 
model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores 
in my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing physicalism, 
"Information merging into my thought processes via preception, instantiates the thought 
"I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty much brings me back to just "I'm 
observing a computer screen."  A circle of explanation.


Brent



The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more modernly, 
mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we use to account for the 
apparent regularities in our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis 
that we can't observe its components directly because we don't observe any of reality 
directly, so on that basis you end up with solipsism.



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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 10:29, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>
>>
>> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter
>> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>
>
> There are interactions inside our brains, but that doesn't mean that those
> interactions are literally our observations. It's not a fact, it's an
> assumption, and one which clearly has problems once you scratch beneath the
> surface.
>

Yes, but the point is that there's a hierarchy of assumptions here. I was
just pointing to the next level down. Going deeper doesn't invalidate
Edgar's point any more than the fact of the first level does.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 4:51:26 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational 
> OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually compute 
> the evolving state of the universe. This guarantees my definition is 
> CORRECT, and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary 
> computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...
>
 
Which is superior at the same time you state it. But then you carry on as 
you were before, defining all reality as this perfect sphere of 
consistency. Hollow it out with a plastic toothpick. Carefully remove a 
moist orb of p-time prepare earlier on the clay wheel. Nature on the table 
wishing she was under it instead of your knife. 
 
Well meant silliness mainly - but seriously, howtare you ASKING Nature in a 
flow chart like that?
 
   

> You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must 
> conform to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it does or 
> not because you never say anything about physics. You only discuss math and 
> philosophy
>
 
Gotta keep the p-time sequence straight Edgar. How old is a handsome rascal 
likT you? The pic's 10+ years ago, so I'd say early 70's. And when did your 
philosophical journey begin? While still a minor - a boy prodigy no less. 
And what are the first three insights that infected you -confidence so 
positively, commitment too. Life long dedication true to say. After all 
here you are 60 odd years later. 
 
Step three of the thousand mile journey was p-time wasn't it. So 60 year 
p-time, p now for Platinum too. Just a boy - gifted mind you - a prodigy - 
but p-time was given birth to bya boy. The other two where 
synrchronization to the power of c, and the perfect logical structure. 
 
Point of all this being. Was there a definition of computation back then? 
And alsohand on heart can you really lay claim to 'asking' Nature how 
she does tthing? You might have asked but it's what you are willing to do 
to get Nature's answer that does all the heavy lifting. 
 
I don't know. You had these insights right at the start and you've kept 
them all the way through 60 years of apparently listening seriously for an 
answer. I suppose it's a rare case of two great minds, you and Nature, 
thinking alike.
 
Don't worry by the way I spread the slime around and don't complain when 
slime comes around. The above kind of reminds me of David Deutsch's even 
greater fortune. Everything he already thought was basically true turned 
out true. Not just scientific hunches; EVERYTHING. Every narrative, every 
prejudice about the West. All the philosophical stuff. All the self serving 
stuff too. Everything right, and being a rational UKC, with memes in rude 
health, David Deutsch saw no problem in that, saw no need to reflect extra 
careful, or necessarily at all. IMHO.

>
>  
> This is a big big difference.
>
 
Oh contraire olde sausage; no difference at all 

>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>>
>> In which theory?
>>
>> In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the 
>> "actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of emptiness.
>>
>> In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0), 
>> s(s(0))), ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient fiction 
>> to sum up infinities of arithmetical relation below our substitution level, 
>> making the sharing of our most probable computations sharable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can 
>> observe is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
>> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>>
>> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, 
>>
>>
>>
>> Define "occur".
>>
>>
>>
>> and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of 
>> space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
>> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
>> within.
>>
>> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
>> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. 
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>>
>>
>> Now that looks like computationalism, except

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>

There are interactions inside our brains, but that doesn't mean that those 
interactions are literally our observations. It's not a fact, it's an 
assumption, and one which clearly has problems once you scratch beneath the 
surface.
 

>
> The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>

The assumption that it leads to solipsism is solipsistic. If the universe 
is a sensory experience, then there is no escaping our unity with it, in 
spite of local obstructions. If we can tell ourselves objectively what is 
and what is not solipsistic, then we are counting on some fundamentally 
trustworthy quality of our own reasoning and intuition. 

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to see you
> try to get into the hard drug distribution black market
>

Just curious, is there any particular reason you think I haven't already
done so?

>

> > hopefully not getting killed in the process
>

Thank you for your concern.

> It [the Black Market] is a global oligopoly
>

I know.

> dominated by a few trans-national drug gangs
>

I know.

> if you think that this is an exemplar of free market
>


I do.

> I have to really question what your idea of freedom is.
>

The ability to buy anything if the seller and buyer can agree on a price.

 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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

You have a point and I devote an entire part of my book on Reality to 
discussing these kinds of interactions of mind and external computational 
reality of which individual minds are just subsets of.

But you have to be careful to understand how mind and reality interact. 
When you do you don't get solipsism.

If your view above were strictly true you would get solipsism not just iN 
MY THEORY but in standard physics as well. So your point doesn't just apply 
to my theories but to all science

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>
>> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>
>
> Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter 
> and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>
> The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
> you end up with solipsism.
>
>
>

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your 
posts.

I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would 
argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to 
the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different lengths as you 
claim.

The length of a world line is the PROPER TIME along that world line. Thus 
the length of a world line is INVARIANT. It is the length of the world line 
according to its proper clock and NOT the length according to C's clock 
which is what this diagram shows.

So to calculate the length of A's and B's world lines in C's frame (which 
this diagram represents) we must take the apparent lengths as shown from 
C's frame view on the diagram, and SHORTEN each section by the apparent 
slowing of ITS CLOCK relative to C's CLOCK.

In other words, the proper time LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines will NOT 
be as they appear in this diagram which displays their apparent length's 
relative to C's proper clock. To get the actual length we have to use the 
readings of A's and B's clock and shorten their apparent lengths by that 
amount.

When we do this all the blue segments of A's and B's world lines become 
parallel to C's and thus add no length to A's or B's world lines. This is 
what we would expect since the pure NON-accelerated relative motion of the 
blue segments doesn't add length to a world line.

So when we subtract the apparent length differences of the blue lines all 
we are left with is the red ones which are equal.

Thus the actual LENGTHS of A's and B's world lines are equal. And the only 
effects which add length to world lines are in fact accelerations as I 
claimed.

The point is that the TRAJECTORIES in spacetime of world lines from some 
frame like C's in this diagram do NOT properly represent the invariant 
LENGTHS of those world lines. Because to get the invariant proper time 
length we must shorten those trajectories by the apparent clock slowing 
along it to get the actual proper clock interval from start to finish.

So when we do this we find that the different LENGTHS of world lines 
between any two spacetime points are due ONLY TO ACCELERATIONS OR 
GRAVITATION as I previously stated. 

Do you agree?


Edgar




On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:01:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to 
>> acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing 
>> I was?
>>
>> Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included 
>> this except in response to your own Troll obsession.)
>>
>> Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest 
>> scientific answer for a change if you can... OK?
>>
>> It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they 
>> care to chime in..
>>
>
>
> In the case of the traditional twin paradox where one accelerates between 
> meetings while the other does not, the one that accelerates always has the 
> greater path length through spacetime, so in this case they are logically 
> equivalent. But you can have a case in SR (no gravity) where two observers 
> have identical accelerations (i.e. each acceleration lasts the same 
> interval of proper time and involves the same proper acceleration 
> throughout this interval), but because different proper times elapse 
> *between* these accelerations, they end up with worldlines with different 
> path lengths between their meetings (and thus different elapsed aging)...in 
> an online discussion a while ago someone drew a diagram of such a case that 
> I saved on my website:
>
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/tripletparadox.jpg
>
> In this example A and B have identical red acceleration phases, but A will 
> have aged less than B when they reunite (you can ignore the worldline of C, 
> who is inertial and naturally ages more than either of them).
>
> You can also have cases in SR where twin A accelerates "more" than B 
> (defined in terms of the amount of proper time spent accelerating, or the 
> value of the proper acceleration experienced during this time, or both), 
> but B has aged less than A when they reunite, rather than vice versa. As 
> always the correct aging is calculated by looking at the overall path 
> through spacetime in some coordinate system, and calculating its "length" 
> (proper time) with an equation that's analogous to the one you'd use to 
> calculate the spatial length of a path on a 2D plane.
>
> Jesse
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all
> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are
> never observations of empty space itself.
>

Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter
and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.

The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more
modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we
use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't
throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components
directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis
you end up with solipsism.

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Gabriel Bodeen]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:59:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
>
> An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or invalid, and 
> either sound or unsound.  Regarding UDA's soundness:  I have no problem 
> saying Yes Doctor.  Similarly I have no problem with the Church thesis.  
> But when it comes to Arithmetical Realism, I don't know of any convincing 
> reasons to believe it. 
>
>
> You don't believe in the prime numbers? 
>
> All theories presuppose arithmetical realism. Many notions, like the 
> notion of digital machine presupposes arithmetical realism. Comp or just 
> Church thesis don't make sense without AR. 
> AR is not an hypothesis in metaphysics, it is the name of the beliefs in 
> elementary arithmetic. It is a set of mathematical hypothesis, together 
> with its usual semantic the structure (N, +, *).
>

Heh, yes, I believe in prime numbers.  But in "The Origin of Physical Laws 
and Sensations" you wrote of AR that it is "the assumption that 
arithmetical propositions ... are true independently of me, you, humanity, 
the physical universe (if that exists), etc."  A couple other accounts of 
how things might be that I take seriously are (1) physicalism in the sense 
that arithmetical propositions might only be true when physically realized, 
or even (2) relativism in the sense that arithmetical propositions might 
only be true for humanlike brains, with an alethiology of the sort 
preferred by the American pragmatist school of philosophy.  And a third 
meta-account is that reality might be a way that doesn't make sense to me.  
Four options plus an ignorance prior and little evidence gives me about 25% 
confidence for each. :)

-Gabe


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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;


Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events 
cause extinctions, not averages. It's akin to saying of we added all the 
average dick lengths on Earth, it'd reach 2/3rds to the Moon. An interesting 
topic, but unhelpful. Estimates of resources magically increase when money is 
involved. The shale gas that was paltry in the US 10 years ago is now something 
the Greens scream about, and Obama fears, (that's ideology for you). Its just 
that the Atlantic plays that Petrobas was counting on, were nuked by US shale 
gas and oil development. If money drives everything, and technology follows, 
the world becomes more cognitive. As Matt Ridley noted, once you have a bit of 
goodies in the world, human perception of pollution changes. All of a sudden, 
tigers and orangutans, clean air and water, star to matter. Maslow's hierarchy 
of needs becomes apparent. Am I saying that pereception controls physical 
reality? No. But it effects the way we choose things. Also, the road not taken, 
in energy, in space, has been effected by ROI. The ROI that I speak of, is not 
what is decided by you and I, who are spacekateers, but the worlds' rich, who 
access power and influence it. Feel like weeping now? Last, don't switch off 
the dirty, environmentally devastating, until we've got clean at hand, 
producing Terawatts of electricity on a 7 x 24 basis. But this is not for you 
and I too decide, Chris, but the super rich ;-) 


-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







  
 
 
 
   From: "spudboy...@aol.com" 
  
 


>>Chris, at some point we must ask basic questions, such as, do the toilets 
>>flush, and do the lights come on? We are not, I believe, speaking here about 
>>Bruno's UDA, versus Tegmark's MUH, but how well our civilizations flourish or 
>>fail? If we have the clean tech to replace the dirty tech, and can afford it, 
>>and it can produce the megawatts, then there is no argument here. My only 
>>question to the Greens is: Does it do all of the above, and can you provide 
>>evidence?
 
To the earth and the real world we inhabit, it actually matters not at all, how 
much we debate whether or not the toilets will flush or the lights will come 
on. The physical limits of our planet have been reached, or will soon be 
reached. Some things to consider: the extinction rate is already 10,000 times 
the average background rate; ocean food webs are collapsing all over the world 
in a drastic manner; the rates of desertification, deforestation, loss of top 
soil, loss of soil fertility, loss of aquifers are all proceeding at rates that 
should alarm anyone who actually looks at these trends. Vital resources -- such 
as oil for example -- have already peaked (the world will never produce as much 
oil as it did in the 2005-2010 period... those days are over and super giant 
mega fields are all in decline (including the biggest of them all: Ghawar, 
according to Simmons (with whom I corresponded over the years with until he 
died a few years ago) -- the Saudis jealously guard their production/reserve 
stats on the level of a state secret, but it is telling that in spite of the 
various price spikes that have happened and will continue to occur they have 
been unable to up their output in order to promote their stated goal of price 
stability. -- instead we must live under the distorting effect of wild price 
swings, because there is no swing supplier anymore i.e. oil has peaked )


All fossil energy supplies are at or are nearing peak production and because of 
tertiary and other advanced techniques employed to squeeze as much out as 
possible as fast as possible, once fields go into decline their rates of 
decline are very rapid. Take for example the Cantarell super giant field off 
the coast of the Yucatan and one of the worlds biggest fields ever discovered.  
Production peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in 2003; falling to 408,000 
barrels per day by 2012, which is less than 20% of what it had been producing 
at peak in under ten years after decline set in.


There are no more super giant fields remaining to be discovered (except perhaps 
in the Arctic Ocean basin or in Antarctica and in extreme deep water deposits 
(such as the one discovered in Brazil)  but in such cases there exist extreme 
challenges in getting the oil out -- just ask Shell Oil (Deep Water Horizon 
disaster). Brazil in fact has not been able to develop its super giant at 
nearly the level it had hoped to as another example.


In all cases the EROI (or energy returned on energy invested) of extracting 
this hard to get oil -- or for mining tar sands, or fracking shale deposits as 
well is rapidly falling leaving ever smaller margins of surplus energy -- for 
all other needs. The EROI of oil extraction has fallen into

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 18:10, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:48:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way  
that it
> is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop
> being about motivation and becomes that we can't think  
straight? ass

>
> Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what  
looks
> to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground  
on
> (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over
> days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return

> to normal until all the REM is made up for)
> i
> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties  
fatigue

> to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
> ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a  
specifc
> kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep?  
Such

> that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
> ion
> If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
> in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of  
the
> heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other  
organs
> where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected  
with

> our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
> experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
> object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that  
stable?

> If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
>
> If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
> experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
> conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
> hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
> software, such that the experience is able to think the next
> thought? The processor? RAM?
>
> Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes  
running,
> and given these processes, and their footprint through the  
hardware
> can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should  
it
> be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

> would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
> intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the  
footprint of

> our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
>  of that code?
> ,
> Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched  
over the
> past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at  
all

> having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
> runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling  
little

> consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
> only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner?  
Why
> is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been  
done

> on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the  
derivation of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is  
not

an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist  
in Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from  
their views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we  
almost equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
"affirmatively", we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are "invoking God" implicitly  
in the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.


Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.


OK.



I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I  
do totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad,  
in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!


Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use  
expression like "a machine can think" o

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):



On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every 
case of true randomness an instance of FPI?


Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?


What do you mean by "true randomness"?

I have no problem with that notion, though. I use it in the sense of total 
arbitrariness. I illustrate this by giving my favorite binary true random sequence: it is


1...

It is the "true random sequence" of the superlucky guy (or super unlucky , in case he 
bet on zero!).


But for the FPI, for example in the iterated WM-duplication, all you need is too 
realize that the the vast majority of 1p experienced experience is 
algorithmic-incompressible. That is random enough.





Hmm, Brent, you were perhaps meaning by "true randomness" the following:

1) you assume a 3p primitive physical reality,
2) you assume it can contain primitive, irreducible random events.


I'm not sure what 1) means.  I was hypothesizing (not assuming) 2).




That is logically consistent, so I am agnostic, but I believe that invoking such "true 
randomness" in an explanation is just a god-of-the-gap type of explanation. it is like 
"don't ask" or "don't try to understand".


It is more like, "Some things just happen."...like a UD.

Brent



I feel close to Einstein on this, who define "insanity" by the belief in such "true 3p 
randomness". I don't push it that far though.


Bruno






Bruno





Brent

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.


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/d/optout.


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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote:

On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? 
Or is
every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?

Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?

If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending,


True; but I don't assume that.

Brent


because the evolution of the system is deterministic.

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 12:21:15 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
> never observations of empty space itself.
>
> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
> is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>
> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, and 
> they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of space 
> based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
> within.
>
> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. It is a 
> computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>
> This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
> the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
> logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
> and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
> rather than a pre-existing background to them...
>
>
> Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
> information computations encoding particulate interactions we have the key 
> to resolving all quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the 
> source of Quantum randomness.
>
>
> But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
> tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
> be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the 
> challenge!
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
 
Fire away baby. there's always something to agree with in your thinking. 
For example I agree the present moment reflects an underlying 
physical dynamic and there's a fundamental sense in which everything local 
to me is 'processed' in synch to myself and one of the ways that stays in 
line is via the time dimension an the concept of now. 
 
I just don't see a way to make things more concrete than that. In your 
reasoning. Not mine obviously. My theories near complete, and I've already 
translated it to an economic/social discovery/correction method. The point 
being to see it run, because large predictations are made for how things 
will go. My confidence/laziness is wavering slightly at the edge of the 
pool on this.
 
What was the first phase went on going on a long time, and it's left me 
somewhat diverged from some of the alphamale qualities major going at it 
commercially seems to see as prime. I used to be the beefy prosperous 
looking guy saying "Come on I'm not hearing it. Say it with conviction, 
commitment and passion. Say it, let me hear you say I AM A TIGER" 
Now I'm the woody allen type repeating ""I am? a Tiger?"

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[meekerdb]

On 3/6/2014 11:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some 
computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person 
is nothing capable of being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a computer cannot 
think, a computation cannot think, I would say. But I can still say yes to the doctor, 
because I can believe that my consciousness is related to an infinity of number 
relation in arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible for that 
consciousness to be manifestable here and now, with hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?


Well, either in some other "here and now", as this is an indexical, or of something else 
(in some altered state of consciousness which might have nothing to do with "here and 
now"), or it might just not be conscious at all.


What I am saying here is just that 3p things can only be conscious in some metaphorical 
way, like when we say that a machine can think, which really means only that a machine 
can support a thinking/conscious first person agent.


And without support...no consciousness.


The conscious-thinker has to be a first person, not a body. The first lesson of 
computationalism is that "I" am not "my body", I own or borrow it only. In principle, I 
can get another one.


Not a body I can understand (although I think a body and even an environment may be 
necessary).  But you also say "not a computation".


Brent

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Bruno,

I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational  
OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually  
compute


But this is what I ask you to define. What do you mean by "compute"?




the evolving state of the universe.


With how many decimals?






This guarantees my definition is CORRECT,


Vacuously correct, as you do not provide a definition, nor do you  
relate what you mean to the standard definition.





and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary  
computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...


You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must  
conform to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it  
does or not because you never say anything about physics. You only  
discuss math and philosophy


This is a big big difference.


I reason from a weak hypothesis, which you have accepted, and only  
show the consequences.
Why not use your tehory to find a flaw in the reasoning, if you dion't  
accept the consequence. Or that might help you to add in  
"computational" what you need to escape the conquences. But if you  
want to save a "unique physical reality", you will need to add many  
actual infinities in your hypotheses.


Bruno






Edgar




On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is  
no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events  
and observers.


In which theory?

In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the  
"actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of  
emptiness.


In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0),  
s(s(0))), ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient  
fiction to sum up infinities of arithmetical relation below our  
substitution level, making the sharing of our most probable  
computations sharable.







Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation  
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually  
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In  
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or  
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.


Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can  
observe is particulate interactions which have what we call  
dimensional relationships mandated by conservation laws.


But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR,



Define "occur".



and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion  
of space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to  
EMERGE from particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as  
something they occur within.


So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules  
imposed by the conservation laws that govern particulate  
interactions.


OK.




It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.


Now that looks like computationalism, except you still did not say  
if you use "computational" in the standrad sense of Turing, Post,  
Church, Kleene, or ... in which sense?


If you use it in the standard sense, automatically you assume some  
amount of arithmetical realism, and you get the "ontology" on a  
plateau, as the sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (a very tiny  
part of the whole arithmetical reality) provides a computational  
space.


Of course, that arithmetical reality has nothing to do with time,  
space, and matter a priori, and is of the type "platonic out of time  
immaterial ideas", but with comp this structure admits a description  
in terms of "block universal machine landscape".








This again is another strong indication that everything really  
occurs at the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract  
information in a logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality  
and prior to physicality,



It it is prior physicality, it is prior to time.




and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these  
computations rather than a pre-existing background to them...


Dimensionality, and time.

Those things does not occur, they are only interpreted as such by  
the universal numbers.






Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM  
information computations


if only we could knew what you mean by that.



encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all  
quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of  
Quantum randomness.


You are quick, but computationalism indeed solves QM paradoxes, in  
the Everett "multi" way, as far as it extends Everett properly on  
arithmetic, and this is testable, and already partially tested.







But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they  
afraid to tackle it? P

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:48:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
> > So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
>   
> > is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop 
>   
> > being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
> > 
> > Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
> > to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
> > (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over 
>   
> > days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return 
>   
> > to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
> > i 
> > Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
> > to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
> > ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
> > kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such 
>   
> > that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
> > ion 
> > If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
> > in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
> > heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs 
>   
> > where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with 
>   
> > our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
> > experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
> > object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? 
>   
> > If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
> > 
> > If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
> > experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
> > conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
> > hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
> > software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
> > thought? The processor? RAM? 
> > 
> > Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, 
>   
> > and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware 
>   
> > can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
> > be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness 
>   
> > would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
> > intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of 
>   
> > our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
> >  of that code? 
> > , 
> > Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
>   
> > past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
> > having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
> > runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little 
>   
> > consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
> > only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why 
>   
> > is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done 
>   
> > on the footprint issue? 
>
>
> A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 
>
> And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining 
>   
> consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of 
>   
> the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 
>
> I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic 
>   
> suggest the following answer. 
>
> Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
> an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
> person, a first person notion. 
>
  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out 
 of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:




On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:32:32 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:


Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?

I don't object to any step in UDA.  It seems internally consistent  
and plausible to me.  I'm unsure what level of confidence I would  
assign to it being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the  
vicinity of 25%.


A reasoning is 100% valid, or invalid. Do you mean that the truth of  
the premise, comp, is in the vicinity of 25%. making perhaps its  
neoplatonist consequences in the vicinity of 25% ?


I will make a confession: for me comp only oscillates between the  
false and the unbelievable.


Yes, that's what I mean.

An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or invalid,  
and either sound or unsound.  Regarding UDA's soundness:  I have no  
problem saying Yes Doctor.  Similarly I have no problem with the  
Church thesis.  But when it comes to Arithmetical Realism, I don't  
know of any convincing reasons to believe it.


You don't believe in the prime numbers?

All theories presuppose arithmetical realism. Many notions, like the  
notion of digital machine presupposes arithmetical realism. Comp or  
just Church thesis don't make sense without AR.
AR is not an hypothesis in metaphysics, it is the name of the beliefs  
in elementary arithmetic. It is a set of mathematical hypothesis,  
together with its usual semantic the structure (N, +, *).





There are other options that seem just as sensible, and there's  
always the possibility that reality is quite unlike any of the ideas  
that seem sensible to us.


Keep in mind that we assume computationalism. This entails a relation  
between mind and number relations, and we reason from there.


We don't known reality, but we can try theories, and after the  
discovery of the universal machine, the comp theory inherit a solid  
and rich mathematics, which can help in that possibly highly counter- 
intuitive study.





In the usual Bayesian sense of probability it's fine to place a bet  
with a level of confidence between 0 and 1 even on fully determined  
unique events like whether AR is true.  My bet would be about 25%.   
If someday I survive a bomb blast by quantum tunneling to safety,  
then I'll update to virtually 100%. :)


Regarding validly, it's also the case that I don't have complete  
confidence that when I perceive an argument to be valid it actually  
is valid.  For me this wariness developed in response to having been  
religious for many years in a way I no longer think was rationally  
justified, even if it seemed so at the time.  UDA looks valid to me  
but it shares many of the features of other metaphysical arguments  
that I find suspicious, so I remain a bit suspicious of my capacity  
to judge it without succumbing to biases.   I'd bet nearly 1 but not  
1 on its validity.


OK.  I take it that you have to dig deeper to improve your capacity to  
judge, and that is very wise.


Bruno





-Gabe

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

I've repeatedly answered your question. I define computational 
OPERATIONALLY as whatever is necessary and sufficient to actually compute 
the evolving state of the universe. This guarantees my definition is 
CORRECT, and it becomes a matter of determining what the actual necessary 
computations are. And I've given a number of thoughts about that...

You define your comp THEORETICALLY and then insist that nature must conform 
to your theory, apparently without even asking nature if it does or not 
because you never say anything about physics. You only discuss math and 
philosophy

This is a big big difference.

Edgar




On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:31:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>
>
> In which theory?
>
> In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the 
> "actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of emptiness.
>
> In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0), s(s(0))), 
> ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient fiction to sum up 
> infinities of arithmetical relation below our substitution level, making 
> the sharing of our most probable computations sharable.
>
>
>
>
>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
> never observations of empty space itself.
>
> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
> is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>
> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, 
>
>
>
> Define "occur".
>
>
>
> and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of 
> space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
> within.
>
> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. 
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>
>
> Now that looks like computationalism, except you still did not say if you 
> use "computational" in the standrad sense of Turing, Post, Church, Kleene, 
> or ... in which sense?
>
> If you use it in the standard sense, automatically you assume some amount 
> of arithmetical realism, and you get the "ontology" on a plateau, as the 
> sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (a very tiny part of the whole 
> arithmetical reality) provides a computational space.
>
> Of course, that arithmetical reality has nothing to do with time, space, 
> and matter a priori, and is of the type "platonic out of time immaterial 
> ideas", but with comp this structure admits a description in terms of 
> "block universal machine landscape".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
> the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
> logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
>
>
>
> It it is prior physicality, it is prior to time.
>
>
>
>
> and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
> rather than a pre-existing background to them...
>
>
> Dimensionality, and time.
>
> Those things does not occur, they are only interpreted as such by the 
> universal numbers. 
>
>
>
>
> Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
> information computations 
>
>
> if only we could knew what you mean by that.
>
>
>
> encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all quantum 
> paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of Quantum randomness.
>
>
> You are quick, but computationalism indeed solves QM paradoxes, in the 
> Everett "multi" way, as far as it extends Everett properly on arithmetic, 
> and this is testable, and already partially tested. 
>
>
>
>
>
> But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
> tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
> be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the 
> challenge!
> :-)
>
>
> It is very promising, but you fail to convince me on your p-time idea, and 
> I am waiting for your explanation on what you mean by "computation", and 
> eventually how you relate the mind reality and the observable reality.
> But, first of all, what do you mean by "computation", and what are you 
> assuming for that explanation or definition.
>
> The standard notion is arithmetical, accepting Church thesis, and ca

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Gabriel Bodeen]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 12:32:32 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
> Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris? 
>
> I don't object to any step in UDA.  It seems internally consistent and 
> plausible to me.  I'm unsure what level of confidence I would assign to it 
> being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the vicinity of 25%.  
>
>
> A reasoning is 100% valid, or invalid. Do you mean that the truth of the 
> premise, comp, is in the vicinity of 25%. making perhaps its neoplatonist 
> consequences in the vicinity of 25% ?
>
> I will make a confession: for me comp only oscillates between the false 
> and the unbelievable.
>

Yes, that's what I mean.

An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or invalid, and 
either sound or unsound.  Regarding UDA's soundness:  I have no problem 
saying Yes Doctor.  Similarly I have no problem with the Church thesis.  
But when it comes to Arithmetical Realism, I don't know of any convincing 
reasons to believe it.  There are other options that seem just as sensible, 
and there's always the possibility that reality is quite unlike any of the 
ideas that seem sensible to us.  In the usual Bayesian sense of probability 
it's fine to place a bet with a level of confidence between 0 and 1 even on 
fully determined unique events like whether AR is true.  My bet would be 
about 25%.  If someday I survive a bomb blast by quantum tunneling to 
safety, then I'll update to virtually 100%. :)

Regarding validly, it's also the case that I don't have complete confidence 
that when I perceive an argument to be valid it actually is valid.  For me 
this wariness developed in response to having been religious for many years 
in a way I no longer think was rationally justified, even if it seemed so 
at the time.  UDA looks valid to me but it shares many of the features of 
other metaphysical arguments that I find suspicious, so I remain a bit 
suspicious of my capacity to judge it without succumbing to biases.   I'd 
bet nearly 1 but not 1 on its validity.

-Gabe

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 13:21, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no  
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and  
observers.


In which theory?

In QM, the vacuum is full of events. Indeed the quantum state of the  
"actual universe" might be a term in some quantum description of  
emptiness.


In the comp toe-theory, you are right, as there is only 0, s(0),  
s(s(0))), ..., and space, like with Kant actually, is a convenient  
fiction to sum up infinities of arithmetical relation below our  
substitution level, making the sharing of our most probable  
computations sharable.







Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation  
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually  
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In  
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or  
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.


Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can  
observe is particulate interactions which have what we call  
dimensional relationships mandated by conservation laws.


But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR,



Define "occur".



and they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion  
of space based on these dimensional relationships can be said to  
EMERGE from particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as  
something they occur within.


So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules  
imposed by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions.


OK.




It is a computational structure rather than a physical structure.


Now that looks like computationalism, except you still did not say if  
you use "computational" in the standrad sense of Turing, Post, Church,  
Kleene, or ... in which sense?


If you use it in the standard sense, automatically you assume some  
amount of arithmetical realism, and you get the "ontology" on a  
plateau, as the sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic (a very tiny part  
of the whole arithmetical reality) provides a computational space.


Of course, that arithmetical reality has nothing to do with time,  
space, and matter a priori, and is of the type "platonic out of time  
immaterial ideas", but with comp this structure admits a description  
in terms of "block universal machine landscape".








This again is another strong indication that everything really  
occurs at the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract  
information in a logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality  
and prior to physicality,



It it is prior physicality, it is prior to time.




and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these  
computations rather than a pre-existing background to them...


Dimensionality, and time.

Those things does not occur, they are only interpreted as such by the  
universal numbers.






Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM  
information computations


if only we could knew what you mean by that.



encoding particulate interactions we have the key to resolving all  
quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the source of  
Quantum randomness.


You are quick, but computationalism indeed solves QM paradoxes, in the  
Everett "multi" way, as far as it extends Everett properly on  
arithmetic, and this is testable, and already partially tested.







But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they  
afraid to tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this  
one and that would be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if  
anyone dares take up the challenge!

:-)


It is very promising, but you fail to convince me on your p-time idea,  
and I am waiting for your explanation on what you mean by  
"computation", and eventually how you relate the mind reality and the  
observable reality.
But, first of all, what do you mean by "computation", and what are you  
assuming for that explanation or definition.


The standard notion is arithmetical, accepting Church thesis, and can  
be defined using only "0", "s", "+", "*" and the logical symbol with  
"(" and ")".


Actually a unique diophantine polynomial of degree 4 is enough, by the  
long work of Hilary Putnam, Martin Davis, Julia Robinson, Youri  
Matiyasevich, and Peter Jones.



Bruno







Edgar

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything 

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:21:15 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>

I agree.
 

>
> Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
> is interactions between particulate matter and energy.
>

Not so fast. All we *actually* observe is interactions within our own 
sensory modalities and meta-sensory-interpretations. What we observe is 
always a "sense of matter and energy", just as these patterns of pixels on 
screen are a "sense of English words make of the Latin alphabet". To 
someone who can only read Thai script, these are just squiggly characters 
in a foreign language. To a baby who does not know what language is, they 
are not anything but a lot of graphics. Indeed the "patterns" and "pixels" 
and "screen" are also another kind of text, read by our lower level senses 
- through the focus of human eyes, through our body's ability to connect 
with the kinds of radiation being emitted from the technology, etc.
 

> In fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy,
>

We don't know that.
 

> they are never observations of empty space itself.
>
> Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
> is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
> relationships mandated by conservation laws.
>
> But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, and 
> they are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of space 
> based on these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from 
> particulate interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur 
> within.
>
> So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
> by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. It is a 
> computational structure rather than a physical structure.
>
> This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
> the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
> logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
> and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
> rather than a pre-existing background to them...
>

Then emergence becomes the only part of the universe that matters, and it 
is unexplained by mathematics.

Craig
 

>
>
> Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
> information computations encoding particulate interactions we have the key 
> to resolving all quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the 
> source of Quantum randomness.
>
>
> But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
> tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
> be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the 
> challenge!
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>

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

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:

Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to  
you. You have my greatest sympathies.


Thanks Liz. Actually I think we are all victims of this sad and so  
much contingent happening. Without it, perhaps I would have published  
more early, and that work would be better known and perhaps already  
refuted, and I would not be here torturing you with those exercises in  
modal logic and self-reference. Or it would be confirmed, and you  
would take my word for granted, or you would have already studied it,  
and in that case, I would again not force you into those arcane logic  
exercises right now. Or like I said, I would have been a mathematical  
logician, and would not yet find the time to come back to my real  
interest, and that too would have prevented me to convince you to do  
logic.
Well, we never know. I guess those things are like that in some  
alternate reality.




(I too have been susceptible to manipulation, as I am rather shy and  
awkward in person, so I speak from experience.)


You have my sympathy. It is alas very frequent. In Belgium, I read a  
report according to which moral harassment is a plea, with 1/20 of the  
population direct victim of it. Of course there are different degrees.




I am very eager to obtain a copy of "the Amoeba's Secret", even more  
than I was before, but I prefer a hard copy to the electronic so I  
will wait a little longer. I will be telling my friends and  
acquaintances who I think may have an interest about it too, of  
course.


Thanks, kind regards,

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/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Vehiculus automobilius

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:14:15 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species 
>> with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars 
>> have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce 
>> in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like 
>> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve 
>> into new styles over time.
>>
>
> But cars are an implementation of the very small subset of horseness that 
> humans care about. One single cell of a horse is orders of greatness more 
> complex than a car. Why would you expect such a kludge to evolve 
> structurally?
>

Exactly. Just as cars are based on a small subset of horseness that humans 
care about, the descriptions of consciousness that modal logic cares about 
are equally narrow. 

 
>
>>
>> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or 
>> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars.
>>
>
> A few have, at the social level. For example, cars evolved in 
> social-meme-space as a way to impress the ladies and as a sports activity.
>

That could be a property of any number of things though, not just horses in 
particular.
 

>  
>
>>  They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their 
>> drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a 
>> car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither 
>> does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very 
>> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all 
>> practical purposes than a horse.
>>
>> Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We 
>> could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in 
>> the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each 
>> windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough 
>> artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether?
>>
>
> That's the entire point of technology -- but funnily enough most 
> technology fetishists don't realize it. Deep down they know that they 
> actually like the gadget for it's own sake, but they always talk of 
> "productivity". Productivity towards what? A question rarely asked in this 
> philosophy-starved society. We want our experiences to be richer and 
> richer, as god-like as possible. Function has nothing to do with it.
>

I agree. Function has no function.

Craig
 

>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>  
>
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-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/d/optout.
>>
>
>

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

Re: Vehiculus automobilius

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:06:54 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:46 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Vehiculus automobilius
>
>  
>
> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with 
> a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have 
> replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a 
> different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like 
> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve 
> into new styles over time. 
>
> Bees fly around like bats, but no one confuses bees for bats. The first 
> popular name for the automobile in fact was the horseless carriage, which 
> is the negation of the horse… a carriage sans horse. The carriage evolved 
> into the car, but the radical change was from the grass fed hooved external 
> motive force – i.e. the horse(s) – to the ICE engine… electric motors came 
> early as well… then later diesel and gas turbines. So what if both fill a 
> locomotive niche? 
>
> One is not the other; that is a rather forced analogy – IMO.
>

It's an intentionally forced analogy. The horseless carriage name only 
emphasizes that the function which horses served for us was replaceable. 
Just as technology freed the buggy from the horse, so too might AI free the 
carriage of the mind (the power to store facts and to move them from one 
application to another appropriately) from the horse of human consciousness 
(the capacity to care, appreciate, and participate the journey). The change 
from grass to gas is analogous to the change from live neurons to 
electronic silicon (or whatever inorganic medium is used). 

>So what if both fill a locomotive niche? 

The 'so what' is that filling a locomotive niche is all that functionalism 
requires. If AI fills the behavioral niches of a person, then it is a 
success, as far as computationalism is concerned.


>
> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or 
> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not 
> whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers 
> careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does 
> not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it 
> need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very 
> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all 
> practical purposes than a horse.
>
> Just for fun let me argue that they do.. in the abstract. A horse requires 
> fuel just as a car does; its fuel is hay & grass (maybe oats and a few 
> apples), but fuel never the less… the horse has an onboard chemical plant 
> to extract the useable energy content – including elaborate symbiotic 
> relationships with the microorganisms in its various stomachs and gut; it 
> has an intricate fuel distribution network delivering highly available 
> oxygen for catalyzed reaction with fuel to produce the energy to power the 
> muscles to move the hooves that move the horse that moves the carriage. A 
> car externalizes the refining process – but who knows maybe one day we will 
> develop hay munching cars (probably not too fast though) – but it also 
> clearly requires fuel.
>
> Both the horse and the car produce waste products as a result of 
> performing the useful work they are being used for. Both a horse and a car 
> increase entropy. 
>
> There are legions of potential parallels that can be teased out between 
> horse and car. But to what end; in my current case a bit of idle fun 
> perhaps.
>

To the end of recognizing that functionalism is false. A particular quality 
of consciousness cannot be emulated by feeding a robot human food and 
programming it to say 'mmm'. Everything that you are saying about horses 
supports my point. There is nothing especially horse-like about its 
functions. The energy it uses and work it performs are not much different 
than a zooplankton.

 

> As for your assertion of better.. that depends on a lot of factors. 
> Perhaps the Google self driving car might be better in a urban commute 
> situation – along urban freeway systems and arterial roadways. But what 
> about for a travers of the Andes mountain chain from south to the Panama 
> canal, which means of locomotion do you think has the better chance of ever 
> even making it from the cold of Tierra del Fuego (odd name for such a cold 
> dismal damp place) zig zagging along mighty Andean ranges, through deep 
> roadless canyons, jungle, desert, swamp and mountains.
>
> I don’t know about you, but in that case I am going for the horse. As 
> always, whenever one says the word “better”… well better depends doesn’t it.
>

Right, that's my point. Simulation is a brittle, superficial branch of the 
tree of existence/c

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Edgar L. Owen]

All, re global warming

Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge 
threat

Oceanographers believe that Antarctica‘s oceanic waters, which are turning 
from briny to fresh in recent decades, are causing the shutdown of the 
Southern Ocean’s coldest, deepest currents.The cold currents, called the 
Antarctic 
Bottom Water, are basically cold, briny, underwater rivers flowing from the 
underwater edge of the Antarctic continent north toward the equator, very 
close to the seafloor. They carry oxygen, carbon, and many nutrients to the 
depths of the ocean, and play a huge role in the survival of creatures 
which live close to the seafloor. It has already been shown in the past 
years that the effects of this current are shrinking, but it was unclear if 
this is a man-caused, or if it is simply a natural process.

This new study concludes that Antarctica’s changing climate is to blame for 
the shrinking Antarctica Bottom Water. Here’s what happens, at a very basic 
level: we’re dealing with a global warming situation. The higher 
temperatures cause ice to melt, and they also cause increased 
precipitations (both rain and snow) in the Antarctic areas. The melting 
glaciers and precipitation bring a massive influx of sweet water which 
slowly replaces the briny, oceanic water in the area. Since the fresh and 
briny water have different densities and somewhat different chemical 
properties, this prevents the currents from taking their normal course.

“Deep ocean waters only mix directly to the surface in a few small regions 
of the global ocean, so this has effectively shut one of the main conduits 
for deep-ocean heat to escape,” said Casimir de Lavergne, an oceanographer 
at McGill University in Montreal.

The key part of the chain here are polynyas – natural holes surrounded by 
sea ice. These persistent regions of open water form when upwellings of 
warm ocean water keep water temperatures above freezing, acting pretty much 
like natural refrigerators – they absorb the cold temperatures, the water 
gets colder (higher density), and drops to the bottom, sending hotter water 
in its stead, creating a current.

But as Antarctica’s water freshened, fewer and fewer polynyas appeared – 
specifically because freshwater is less dense, and even if it gets colder, 
it doesn’t sink to the bottom. It acts like a lid, sealing off the current 
and shutting down oceanic circulation.

“What we suggest is, the change in salinity of the surface water makes them 
so light that even very strong cooling is not sufficient to make them dense 
enough to sink,” de Lavergne told ZME Science. “Mixing them gets harder and 
harder.”

De Lavergne cautioned that the heat-storage effect is localized to the 
Antarctica area, and it’s not connected to the so-called global warming 
“hiatus” – the observed slowing down of global warming, even with increased 
energies in the system.

“Our study is still a hypothesis,” he added. “We say that climate change is 
preventing convection from happening, but we do not know how frequent it 
was in the past, so that’s a big avenue for future research.”

However, even as just a hypothesis, this is a worrying conclusion; oceanic 
anoxia is not a laughing matter, and it’s just another evidence that this 
global warming we are causing has significant and sometimes unexpected 
effects all around the world.

Global warming slows down Antarctica’s coldest currents, poses huge threat is 
a post from ZME Science. (c) ZME Science - All Rights Reserved.


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 6:48:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 12:42, John Mikes > wrote:
>
>> LizR wrote 3-2-14:
>>
>> *(JM:*
>>
>>> *Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's 
>>> knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.* )
>>>
>> *Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's 
>> knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do *
>> *anything?! (L)*
>>
>> "Look at the problem" is quite diffeent from "*settling it* by today's 
>> knowledge & means.
>> We may "anticipate" tomorrow's knowledge and means, but not without a 
>> grain of salt. 
>>
>> You said "set" the first time, not "settle". (And you put it in quotes 
> for some reason.) Maybe you could try explaining yourself well enough that 
> I know what I'm answering? It *sounds* like you're fulminating against 
> "do-gooders" who are trying to solve problems using the tools they have to 
> hand, and saying that they are going about it the wrong way - but maybe you 
> meant something completely different?
>
>

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

Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.

Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
never observations of empty space itself.

Thus we cannot ever observe a pre-existing empty space, all we can observe 
is particulate interactions which have what we call dimensional 
relationships mandated by conservation laws.

But these dimensional relationships DO NOT EXIST UNTIL THEY OCCUR, and they 
are not observed until they are measured. Thus any notion of space based on 
these dimensional relationships can be said to EMERGE from particulate 
interactions rather than pre-existing as something they occur within.

So what we call empty space is really just the mathematical rules imposed 
by the conservation laws that govern particulate interactions. It is a 
computational structure rather than a physical structure.

This again is another strong indication that everything really occurs at 
the fundamental level as computations of pure abstract information in a 
logico-mathematical space prior to dimensionality and prior to physicality, 
and that dimensionality is something that EMERGES from these computations 
rather than a pre-existing background to them...


Now once we understand that dimensionality EMERGES PIECEWISE FROM 
information computations encoding particulate interactions we have the key 
to resolving all quantum paradox, unifying QT and GR and explaining the 
source of Quantum randomness.


But no one here is interested in how that happens, or are they afraid to 
tackle it? Perhaps because Edgar might be right on this one and that would 
be a bitter pill to swallow? We will see if anyone dares take up the 
challenge!
:-)

Edgar

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

Re: Vehiculus automobilius

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Craig,


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with
> a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have
> replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a
> different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like
> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve
> into new styles over time.
>

But cars are an implementation of the very small subset of horseness that
humans care about. One single cell of a horse is orders of greatness more
complex than a car. Why would you expect such a kludge to evolve
structurally?


>
> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or
> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars.
>

A few have, at the social level. For example, cars evolved in
social-meme-space as a way to impress the ladies and as a sports activity.


> They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their
> drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a
> car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither
> does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very
> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all
> practical purposes than a horse.
>
> Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We
> could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in
> the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each
> windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough
> artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether?
>

That's the entire point of technology -- but funnily enough most technology
fetishists don't realize it. Deep down they know that they actually like
the gadget for it's own sake, but they always talk of "productivity".
Productivity towards what? A question rarely asked in this
philosophy-starved society. We want our experiences to be richer and
richer, as god-like as possible. Function has nothing to do with it.

Cheers
Telmo.


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

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):



On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness  
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?


Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true  
randomness?


What do you mean by "true randomness"?

I have no problem with that notion, though. I use it in the sense of  
total arbitrariness. I illustrate this by giving my favorite binary  
true random sequence: it is


1...

It is the "true random sequence" of the superlucky guy (or super  
unlucky , in case he bet on zero!).


But for the FPI, for example in the iterated WM-duplication, all you  
need is too realize that the the vast majority of 1p experienced  
experience is algorithmic-incompressible. That is random enough.





Hmm, Brent, you were perhaps meaning by "true randomness" the following:

1) you assume a 3p primitive physical reality,
2) you assume it can contain primitive, irreducible random events.

That is logically consistent, so I am agnostic, but I believe that  
invoking such "true randomness" in an explanation is just a god-of-the- 
gap type of explanation. it is like "don't ask" or "don't try to  
understand".


I feel close to Einstein on this, who define "insanity" by the belief  
in such "true 3p randomness". I don't push it that far though.


Bruno






Bruno





Brent

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
> Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
>
> Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?
>
>
If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending, because
the evolution of the system is deterministic.

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 7 March 2014 15:12, chris peck  wrote:

>
> The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is
> the probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes
> the idea that there will be only one unique successor of H. The only
> question that is really fitting in the experimental set up is: "what is the
> probability that either of your two successors sees M". Or, if you want to
> keep the questions phrased entirely in 1p then the correct question is:
> "what is the probability that (you in M will see M) and (you in W will see
> W)?" And the answer to that *is* simple and obvious. It is 1.
>
> It seems to me this is at the crux of your argument with Clark. The
> question you phrase in fact implies that only one successor will embody
> your sense of self, your 'I'ness. 'What is the probability that you will
> see x': there is no recognition of duplication in the question, and so
> pronouns become altogether confusing and all participants begin to wonder
> who in fact is who.
>

I agree, given the context, the question is badly posed. However, I know
what it means - the same as when you ask a scientist what is the
probability that the Geiger counter will click in the next minute or the
photon will go through the semi-silvered mirror, and they say "50%" even
though they believe the MWI to be the correct interpretation of QM. It
simply shows that given the assumptions, there is a first person
indeterminacy in this situation, as Everett showed occurs in the MWI.

That is all it shows, or needs to show...

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

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[LizR]

Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to you.
You have my greatest sympathies. (I too have been susceptible to
manipulation, as I am rather shy and awkward in person, so I speak from
experience.) I am very eager to obtain a copy of "the Amoeba's Secret",
even more than I was before, but I prefer a hard copy to the electronic so
I will wait a little longer. I will be telling my friends and acquaintances
who I think may have an interest about it too, of course.

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness  
at all? Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?


Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true  
randomness?


What do you mean by "true randomness"?

I have no problem with that notion, though. I use it in the sense of  
total arbitrariness. I illustrate this by giving my favorite binary  
true random sequence: it is


1...

It is the "true random sequence" of the superlucky guy (or super  
unlucky , in case he bet on zero!).


But for the FPI, for example in the iterated WM-duplication, all you  
need is too realize that the the vast majority of 1p experienced  
experience is algorithmic-incompressible. That is random enough.


Bruno





Brent

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 03:12, chris peck wrote:



>> Then you omit, like Clark, the simple and obvious fact that if in  
H you predict P(M) = 1, then the guy in Moscow will understand that  
the prediction was wrong.


The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed.



It is not, once you get the difference between the 1-view and the 3- 
view, and keep in mind that we *assume* comp.




You ask H, 'what is the probability that you will see M' but this  
question clearly presupposes the idea that there will be only one  
unique successor of H.


This is trivially false, in the 3-1 description. Obviously there will  
be, from the 3p view, two conscious survirvors whoi both are me (in  
the usual sense that I am me, even after change like drinking a cup of  
coffee, or taking a plane).


But by comp we know in advance (in Helsinki) that both first person  
view of the survivors will be unique from their 1p pov.


So in Helsinki P("I will feel to be in only one city") = 1. Whoever I  
will feel to be, I know that will be unique, and thus either W or M in  
that protocol.


Do you agree with this? Do you agree that P("I will feel to be in only  
one city") = 1, in step 3 protocol?






The only question that is really fitting in the experimental set up  
is: "what is the probability that either of your two successors sees  
M". Or, if you want to keep the questions phrased entirely in 1p  
then the correct question is: "what is the probability that (you in  
M will see M) and (you in W will see W)?" And the answer to that  
*is* simple and obvious. It is 1.
It seems to me this is at the crux of your argument with Clark. The  
question you phrase in fact implies that only one successor will  
embody your sense of self, your 'I'ness. 'What is the probability  
that you will see x': there is no recognition of duplication in the  
question,


Of course there is. We just know that with comp, the subject will not  
feel any split or duplication, like in Everett.




and so pronouns become altogether confusing and all participants  
begin to wonder who in fact is who.


Not when you use the 3 and 1 p nuances.





>> ike Clark, you confine yourself in the 3-1 views, without ever  
listening to what the duplicated persons say.


Not at all. Its just that when you ask the right question it doesn't  
make any difference whether you look at it from the objective or  
subjective view. The probabilities work out the same either way.


And in fact, you can only 'listen to what the duplicated persons  
say' by adopting some kind of 3p view in my opinion. H has to fly  
out of his body into a birds eye view of the process, swoop down on  
both W and M guys, dream their 1p views, fly back and integrate  
their answers into his own sums. Whats that? 1-3-1-3-1-3-1p? If  
we're going to be serious about 3-1 confusions then thats a hugely  
contorted confusion of the lot.


>> So if you have a refutation of the point made, you have still to  
provide it.


On the contrary, the refutation is there and you haven't yet  
understood it, less still rebutted it.


tell me if you agree with this: If you are told, in H, (in the step 3  
protocol) that you will be offered a cup of coffee in both W and M,  
after the reconstitution. Do you agree that the probability("I will  
drink a cup of coffee") is one?


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/d/optout.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 01:14, Russell Standish wrote:


On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.

This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for  
the

purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can  
be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to  
get,

but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a
certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no
matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so
cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his
theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be
Lobian, which is an attribute of the functions it can compute and
which seems 3p to me.



I did, at one stage, get Bruno to agree with me that "a program is
conscious" is shorthand for "consciousness supervenes on a running
program of some reference machine".

In such a way, one should also say that a "brain is conscious" (or
thinking) is shorthand for the "consciousness supervenes on a brain".


OK. And then, when those things are clear, we allow ourself to use  
shorter description.

of course we need to re-explain the nuances when new-bes arrive ...




What Bruno purports to show is that consciousness cannot supervene on
a "primitive physical reality",


Well, in MGA (or UDA1-7 and a stringer Occam). But that was not the  
topic here, I think. here it is just that consciousness is not a 3p  
attribute, but an 1p attribute, and so cannot been identified, a bit  
like orange and apple. It is less deep that the fact that there is no  
primitive physical reality. After all, we do have a primitive 3p  
reality with comp, like the numbers.





whereas what I think is really shown
is that observed physical reality (ie phenomena) cannot be
primitive.


? (I agree with this).



Phenomena must be derivable from properties of computation.


OK.




What is not shown by the MGA (and if it did, it would be empirically
invalidated) is that consciousness does not supervene on physical
reality.


?
Consciousness can supervene on a physically real brain. If not we  
would not say "yes" to a doctor.





Brains are part of phenomena, and indeed, it would appear
(empirically) that consciousness does supervene on brains.


Most plausibly. Especially on the generalized brain, and that is used  
in the reasoning.





More on this no doubt when I get to write my fabled paper on the
MGA. Sorry for so many vaccuous promises - but I really have several
projects ahead of it in the queue, so I cannot promise when I'll get
to it.


Take it easy. It is a subtle complex subject, where we can be deluded  
easily by intuition and natural language.

Our brain are not really programmed for that task.

Bruno





--


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/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:41, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely

Only Russell can answer this. I would use "understand" instead of
"agree", because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.



question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
from our conversation, I would say that Russell "agrees" with the
FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding  
of

it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the  
subtleties

get lost in the mail archives.




(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious

But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
defined in any 3p way.

For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.

This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for  
the

purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to  
get,

but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a  
certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no  
matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so  
cannot be thinking.


"Thinking" is amlbiguous, as the word can be used to described 3p  
brain activity. What I said is only that you cannot identify a 3p  
thing with an 1p thing.





When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his theory, for a machine to  
be conscious, he has answered that it be Lobian, which is an  
attribute of the functions it can compute and which seems 3p to me.


[]p is Löbian, but it is not what is conscious in the machine. You  
must apply the Theaetetus definition to get it: so []p & p is the 1p,  
and indeed is not definable by the machine, like we cannot identify  
our consciousness with our body. More on this in the modal or math  
thread.


Bruno





Brent

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

The fact that climate modelling is hard is not a reason to ignore it or to
disregard the results.

Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas but it comes and goes (clouds, fog,
etc). CO2 stays put and has increased by 50% since the Industrial
Revolution (indeed about 20% in my lifetime). A warmer world might have
more clouds - and hence be cooled - or it may not. Damn difficult if we get
that one wrong, though.

Meanwhile the CO2 is acidifying the oceans, and the oceans are slowly
warming. This is far more important dangerous than the effect on the
atmosphere because the oceans contain dissolved gases and those come out of
suspension when they warm. Hence the CO2 they have kinds absorbed will all
come back. And the permafrost may also melt and give up methane. Ditto the
clathrates. This is why climate scientists worry about a tipping point,
because of the runaway feedback that may occur.

If the earth warms 4 degrees the seas will expand (water expands as it
warms once it's above 4 deg C of course) and the ice will (eventually)
melt. I'm told Greenland's ice cap is already effectively floating on a
liquid base, and if that lot goes into the sea there will be a lot of
consequences for the climate of the northern hemisphere - eg the currents
that form the north atlantic drift will probably shut down, cooling western
Europe. Also sea levels will rise somewhat - but not all at once (water can
slope across large distances) so it may be more major in the N hemisphere
for a while. I can't remember the figures off hand, it's obviously a lot
less than the effects of the Antarctic melting, but significant even so,
especially given that most major cities are near sea level.

However this may be the least of our worries because there are aquifers
emptying out and resources running out, and interesting times on the
horizon...

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:33, chris peck wrote:


Hi Bruno

>>Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.

pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on  
subjective uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just  
two.


With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different  
vocabulary.




They are mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted  
to the 'satisfaction of everyone'; consequently whether something  
has or hasn't been doesn't tells us much. Refuting something to the  
'satisfaction of everyone' is extraordinarily rare in the scientific  
and philosophical community; less still the wider community. Has  
Astrology been refuted to the satisfaction of everyone?


Yes. For everyone = everyone among scientists.





You're also aware, im sure, that even Darwin's theory, strictly  
speaking, has been refuted. That the theory of inheritance he  
employed was in conflict with his wider principles of selection. His  
theory was internally incoherent and he never spotted it. What does  
that tell us? That theories have extraordinary value even when they  
ought to have been 'refuted to the satisfaction of everyone'.


You can't compare "Darwin general complex scheme", and a statement  
like P(M) = 1/2 in a simple protocol.






This is a good and bad thing. Even if I hadn't refuted your theory  
to my own satisfaction, it wouldn't lead me to accept it.


I have no theory, and I defend no truth.
You say that a reasoning is not valid, it is up to you to prove this.  
Handwaving on vocabulary does not do the task. Only by providing an  
determinacy algorithm, can you refute the 1p  indeterminacy in  
duplication experience.





On the other hand, just because a theory has been (or ought to have  
been) refuted by everyone wouldn't lead me to reject it entirely  
either. It means I can have refuted your conclusions in step 3 to my  
own satisfaction, and still be interested in comp. Hurray! Surely  
that will make you happy?


Well, if you provide a refutation, I would be. But you did not. You  
only pretend to have one, but nobody has seen it.





Have you ever read Putnam's 'on the corroboration of theories'? It  
was pivotal in my extremely stunted intellectual growth. In it he  
discusses the impossibility of ever refuting any theory.


In that sense, OK. But I am not doing philosophy.

Bruno



You're talking to someone who hasn't placed any currency in  
refutation for over twenty years.


All the best

Chris.

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:32:32 +0100


On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show  
you what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs  
because you're looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.


binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.

binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747

Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing  
number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up,  
so any exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time,  
as you flip the coin more and more times, the distribution of  
proportions starts to cluster more and more tightly around the  
expected value.  So for tests when you do two million flips of a  
fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 50% heads  
and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and  
50.05%.



Good. So you agree with step 3? What about step 4? (*). I am  
interested to know.


the FPI is just the elementary statistics of the "bernouilly  
épreuve" (in french statistics), and that is pretty obvious when you  
grasp the definitions given of 1p and 3p.


Bruno

(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html


Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?

I don't object to any step in UDA.  It seems internally consistent  
and plausible to me.  I'm unsure what level of confidence I would  
assign to it being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the  
vicinity of 25%.


A reasoning is 100% valid, or invalid. Do you mean that the truth of  
the premise, comp, is in the vicinity of 25%. making perhaps its  
neoplatonist consequences in the vicinity of 25% ?


I will make a confession: for me comp only oscillates between the  
false and the unbelievable.




I ha

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:06, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Russell,

Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the  
judge of whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that  
single person first approved it and then rejected it when he had  
some dispute with Bruno? That sounds quite strange to me. Normally  
it would be a whole panel of judges to approve it, and the whole  
panel to reject it.


All jury confronted with my thesis has been enthusiast, and apparently  
get the point. Even the Brussels jury. The problem has never come from  
any scientist, nor any member of a jury, with the exception of the  
literary philosopher in Brussel's jury. I did get the prize (the  
picture in the journal, the champaign, but the publication of the  
thesis, and then if the amoeba's secret where delayed, without any  
explanation.



Bruno



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 5:58:55 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Ghibbsa and Bruno,
>
> Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's  
paper didn't

> really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error
> discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just  
unwarranted

> assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real
universe?

If it were any of these, then Le Monde would publish a formal
retraction, which would indicate that the prize was awarded, and then
subsequently withdrawn, along with the reasons for the withdrawal.

Instead, the award to Bruno Marchal is not mentioned at all:

http://www.lemonde.fr/kiosque/recherche/laureats/prix-recherche-laureats.html

> I
> also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical
> usually politics itself won't be able to trump that.

Exactly. Even if you don't believe Bruno about being awarded le Prix
Le Monde, it shouldn't matter, as whether or not he was awarded a
prize makes no difference as to whether his ideas are correct. To
argues otherwise is the fallacious argument from authority.

Nevertheless, the Wayback Machine has kept a copy of the original
lists of Laureats, as it appeared on 9th of August 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010809221720/http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/janv99.html

I think Bruno is correct that something nefarious occurred.

>
> So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link  
to the
> other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for  
your

> theory's paper was revoked?
>
> Thanks,
> Edgar
>

The other side of the story has never been made public. You can read
all about Bruno's side of the story in The Amoeba's Secret, now in  
English for

the first time.

My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured
badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because
Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own
research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something
similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno
faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain
appalling by anyone's standard.

As to what actually happened with le Prix Le Monde - its possible
nobody will ever know. All we have are Bruno's suspicions.

--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@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/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured
badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because
Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his  
own

research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something
similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno
faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain
appalling by anyone's standard.


Why so circumspect about the identity of X.  With so many mentions  
it would be easy for anyone to dig up to whom "X" refers, so why not  
just use his name?


I avoid the name, because I want to avoid complications. I can tell  
you out-of-line if you ask, and I might once day make public the  
prosecution files.


He is an obscure guy, without any serious publications. Since those  
events I got phone calls by people who attribute him many suicides,  
and the facts that he exploits other people by pushing them to do  
mistake, and then he exploits the pressure (shakedown, blackmail) and  
things like that.


It is harassment by manipulation. He was almost a friend, always nice  
and funny with me. It took me 20 years to figure out the manipulation.  
Well, it took me to put that thesis down, as he was forced to make a  
public move.


It is a sort of serial killer, without a trace. Many people were  
shocked by his behavior, and even more by the fact that he got  
protection from above, and has been able to pursue his violent  
actions. He was a sort of genius in demolishing people (and then even  
computers) at a distance. A mind hacker. He was not a bad teacher. I  
did appreciate him and his teaching very much, despite he told me that  
there was nothing interesting in Gödel's theorem. He has been also  
alcoholic for some period, and heavy chain smoker, even in the  
classroom (that was accepted long ago!).


As the logician Maurice Boffa was also a member of the jury of non  
acceptance, I would like to insist that it was not him. On the  
contrary, Boffa realized the manipulation and try hard to defend me.  
Boffa was a real, and notorious mathematical logician, with many  
important publications. Like Smets, Gochet, VandenBussche, Boelen, and  
others, he died soon after those events.


Bruno



Brent

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

RE: Vehiculus automobilius

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Vehiculus automobilius

 

If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with a 
simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have 
replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a 
different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like horses, 
carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve into new 
styles over time. 

Bees fly around like bats, but no one confuses bees for bats. The first popular 
name for the automobile in fact was the horseless carriage, which is the 
negation of the horse… a carriage sans horse. The carriage evolved into the 
car, but the radical change was from the grass fed hooved external motive force 
– i.e. the horse(s) – to the ICE engine… electric motors came early as well… 
then later diesel and gas turbines. So what if both fill a locomotive niche? 

One is not the other; that is a rather forced analogy – IMO.



Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or 
Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not whinny or 
swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers careening off of the 
road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does not perform as many 
complex computations as a horse, but neither does it need to. The function of a 
horse really doesn't need to be very complicated. A Google self-driving car is 
a better horse for almost all practical purposes than a horse.

Just for fun let me argue that they do.. in the abstract. A horse requires fuel 
just as a car does; its fuel is hay & grass (maybe oats and a few apples), but 
fuel never the less… the horse has an onboard chemical plant to extract the 
useable energy content – including elaborate symbiotic relationships with the 
microorganisms in its various stomachs and gut; it has an intricate fuel 
distribution network delivering highly available oxygen for catalyzed reaction 
with fuel to produce the energy to power the muscles to move the hooves that 
move the horse that moves the carriage. A car externalizes the refining process 
– but who knows maybe one day we will develop hay munching cars (probably not 
too fast though) – but it also clearly requires fuel.

Both the horse and the car produce waste products as a result of performing the 
useful work they are being used for. Both a horse and a car increase entropy. 

There are legions of potential parallels that can be teased out between horse 
and car. But to what end; in my current case a bit of idle fun perhaps.

As for your assertion of better.. that depends on a lot of factors. Perhaps the 
Google self driving car might be better in a urban commute situation – along 
urban freeway systems and arterial roadways. But what about for a travers of 
the Andes mountain chain from south to the Panama canal, which means of 
locomotion do you think has the better chance of ever even making it from the 
cold of Tierra del Fuego (odd name for such a cold dismal damp place) zig 
zagging along mighty Andean ranges, through deep roadless canyons, jungle, 
desert, swamp and mountains.

I don’t know about you, but in that case I am going for the horse. As always, 
whenever one says the word “better”… well better depends doesn’t it.

Chris

Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We could 
even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in the factory 
in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each windshield that 
interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough artificial intelligence, why 
not replace function altogether?

Have you ever entertained the thought that maybe you are not actually moving 
around, but rather what is really going on is that you are – to coin a word – 
informationing around. What if space and time, and hence moving, past, future 
are all emergent phenomena of our sensed reality. Consider how if the VR 
machine is deep enough – with layer upon layer of code operating on other code, 
which is built on code built on code – in an infinite regression of emergent 
complexity, of emergent nuance, of emergent whatever qualia you choose… all of 
it, reality and self in reality as well – emergent from an information 
manifold.. the multiverse Schrödinger equation. What seems impossible to 
synthesize, often can become synthesizable given more subtle tools.

I understand your feelings on the matter of the soul being something that 
cannot arise from mere programs operating with numbers… there is no f(x) that 
produces the soul. But when the f(x) regresses and we begin to have deep 
enclosures as in: p(o(n(m(l(k(j(h(g(f(x))  when any one of the 
computational nodes can become self-referent (given some termination 
conditio