RE: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
I am waiting for Russell to give the thumbs up on the print version - I still prefer print for some things like books. Cheers, Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar Cowboy Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:59 PM To: f...@googlegroups.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 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. Great job by you guys, congratulations! Didn't get to reply timely, but please... time?! I'll have to not buy it, just to restore correctness for there to be some dissent, which is dumb, because I want it. Sometimes sacrifice is the best next move. Glad to be of service, gentlemen. PGC 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 Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:foar%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb 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? Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or computationalism. At each branching only one instance of you continue, you say, but that does not accord well with the simplest explanation of the two slits experience. You will have to explain why the superpositions act in the micro and not the macro, and this needs big changes in QM (= SWE), or even bigger to computationalism. If not, you can always consistently assume everything is done by a God to fit your favorite philosophical expectations. You can do that, *logically*, but this is no more truth research, but wishful thinking. 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.
Pac-Man lives!
[image: Inline images 1] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
On 08 Mar 2014, at 14:07, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bruno - I read below but am answering here. You're sincere and I'm not getting my single point across to you. I'm about done trying I think. I've taken a lot of value from the process and it's shame if you haven't but sincerity was all round. Well, I was hoping for specific remarks. I am just trying to understand what you say. In my view, it doesn't stack up building a specific digital, specific software/hardware, prefixed conception into computationalism But that is fuzzy. Where wold I built a specific digital soft/ hardware? What are the prefixed conception of computationalism? when so little is known about consciousness. But we will never lean more about consciousness, if you defeat a theoy because it is done without us knowing more. Actually we will never lean more about anything, if you defeat a theory because it is done without us knowing more that thing. Your emark simply does not make sense, or I miss it completely, and you might elaborate. There are other ways that computationalism can be true and yet have mind blowing surprises in store for the nature of what it is. ? But the computationalist assumption I am using is the weaker one I know of. What do you mean? You don't agree. You think comp is owned by the theses you give to it. Please, if you have another comp hypothesis, not entailed by my comp, can you show it precisely? You think the brain and consciousness is just a technicality despite knowing almost nothing about it, and being unable to give a satisfying explanation of it. Can you tell me what is lacking? UDA = submission of a big problem for the computationalist. So big that without AUDA, we might considered it as close to a refutation of comp. AUDA then shows more technically that both theoretical computer science and quantum mechanics rescue comp from that refutation. Comp predicts the statistical interference of many computations, and QM confirms this. Comp predicts a weird quantum logic for the observable, and QM confirms this. That's your right and your theory. UDA worlds for all theories, and with some works, it can be shown to work on quite weakening of comp. AUDA gives not my theory of everything, but the universal machine's theory of everything. it is a matter of work to verify his, not a matter of philosophical appreciation. A view like that is not something I will ever relate to, but nor do I have a problem.with coexisting alongside. I suppose I'll draw a line provocatively by asking whether a complex proteinso precisely dependent on a 3D structure, is computational? Well, IF proteins are not Turing emulable, and IF their non- computability has some role in our consciousness, then comp is just false, and we are out of the scope of my expertise; say. (to be franc, I don't know any evidence that proteins are not computable, as they obeys to the computable solutions of the SWE). The gene is, Well, gene are also 3D. I doubt that genes are really more easy to handle than protein. I have work on both genes and proteins when working, for years, for a society in biotechnology. It is very complex, OK, but it is quite a jump to invoke non computability here. but is the protein? And if the answer is yes, how much code would be necessary to capture all the structure relationships. In the reasoning, what matters is that the code and its execution appears in UD* or arithmetic. It does not matter if you need 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10 terrabytes to encode the protein. A gene just builds it, doesn't run it. Why is it ruled out effectively, that computation in 3D reality uses 3D reality, structure, as computation? Because it's faster and m ore elegant and Occam simpler, makes use of the dimensionality and materials that define the reality. If it was digital computing, it would have surely made that our reality too ? That's where I'm at,. And if that's saying no to your doctor, it's definitely saying yes to mine. So you do say yes to the doctor? But then the conclusion follows logically. You just seem to put the level very low, but that does not invalidate the reasoning. The reasoning works even if the only way to emulate your brain correctly consists in emulating the entire universe. And I think I own comp, not you. I don't own comp. Comp is just Mechanism, and appears already in old Indians texts. Then the discovery of the universal machine, and Church thesis, has been a scientific breakthrough, that I exploit to prove a theorem. I have no theory, only a theorem with its proof, and it is up to you to find a (real) flaw, if you want to convince us that the theorem does not follow from the premises. I'm right, not you. ? But in end the question of comp and consciousness will not be resolved by debate and persuasion...not
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 08 Mar 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote: On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.). I can't hardly imagine something less random than that. But we don't know that it exists. ? I just said: the UD existence is a theorem of PA, even of RA. It exists like the number 19 exists. Its entire execution exist too, a bit like all prime numbers exist. ISTM that rejecting the possibility of randomness in the world is just dogma. As much as rejecting the possibility that moon is really made of cheese. No doubt. That are dogma, but also fertile hypothesis, as the cheese-moon theory explains nothing new. Of course we can study and try to understand and minimize randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to simply rule it out because we don't like it; We rule it out because not only it explains nothing new, but it introduces insuperable difficulties, and also, it opens to explanation- by-the-gap. It looks like a reification of ignorance. especially by hyposthesizing an unobservable and untestable everythingism. Well you get them just by postulating the SWE, or, when assuming comp, just postulating, for all x y: 0 ≠ (x + 1) ((x + 1) = (y + 1)) - x = y x + 0 = x x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1 x * 0 = 0 x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x I like your theory, but not because it avoids randomness (as Everett does too), but because it seems to address the mind-body problem. OK. Nice, and thanks for telling. personally I also like comp and everett for removing 3p-randomness, and 3p-non locality. Are you sure that you can make sense of 3p-randomness? I can do that from a purely logical perspective, but I still find hard to believe it can make sense in a physical reality, as it introduces events without a cause, and that looks like don't ask sort of magic to me, doubly so, when we see that computationalism implies that kind of magic in the 1p-views (by self-duplication or self-superposition). 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: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On 08 Mar 2014, at 14:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Yes, of course I agree the physical universe is not primitive. OK. So what is primitive? How many times do I have to say that it arises from computational space before it registers with you? I got that, but I still miss your definition of computational. All I can say, is that it is highly non standard, and, well, that you have not yet defined it. As it seems to be your fundamental primitive things, you have to defined it clearly, or you can prove everything you want. I've also said over and over that the physical universe as we imagine it is NOT out there. So the p-time is not there too. OK? The physical universe as we imagine it is IN THERE, in our minds. It's how we internally represent the logico-mathematical universe which is what is 'out there' but which we are also local parts of in computational space. I can be OK, with this. It follows from computationalism indeed, and then it follows from arithmetic also. I have no idea what you mean by numbers indexical personal views. It is the indexicals, like now, here, I (in 1p, and 3p) notions that we get from the mathematical theory of self-reference, as developed by sound classical universal Turing machine (enough rich), as shown by Gödel, Löb, Solovay, and which is captured by the modal logic G and G* and their intensional (modal, code-related) variants. I explain this a lot here, and you might consult my older posts, or my papers, or the literature (mathematical logic), or wait when we come back on this, as we do that recurrently. You seem to ignore that a tiny part of the arithmetical reality contains a full computational space, with both the terminating and non terminating computations well emulated, and the UDA explains why our consciousness differentiates from that structure. Then AUDA shows how that is testable, and partially tested. Bruno On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, 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... But you do agree that such physical universe out there is not primitive, and arise from the computational space. Then if you use computation in the standard sense (Church thesis, etc.), then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of primitively real universe come from. Both time and space, and energy, comes from numbers indexical personal views. You might follow the current explanation or read the papers. It makes computationalism testable (and partially tested). Bruno 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 edga...@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 screenwhich 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
Re: MODAL Last exercise
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:32, LizR wrote: On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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! :-) Excellent :) 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. Not at all, and you know that, as you show below. Hang on I must be missing something. OK, I hang on. That seems trivially obvious! Maybe you could point out what I've misunderstood here... It is not misunderstanding, it is precipitation. Let me try again. OK. []p means that for any world alpha, p is true in all worlds accessible from alpha. That is much better. (Doesn't it? Well if p is a proposition, which might be 'x is false' then that seems reasonable). You lost me here, but it looks like non relevant, even for you. 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. ~[]~p means that it is not true that ~p is true in all worlds accessible from alpha. That is, it means that there is a world beta, with alpha R beta, such that beta verifies p. p true in alpha = I can access, from alpha, to a world where p is true. But isn't that implied by []p? You fall again back in Leibniz. May be I should have started from Kripke immediately. Have you hang on, in your toilet, the fundamentals two Kripke principles? * * * * []p is true in alpha = For all beta such that (alpha R beta) we have beta verifies p. * * * * p is true in alpha = There is a beta verifying p such that (alpha R beta) * * * * I must have a definition wrong somewhere. Correct. 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. Correct. More precision later, notably for the transitive case. 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 08 Mar 2014, at 09:39, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:56 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com 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. Come on man nobody is going to kill someone else over a bar of chocolate.. there are no chocolate deals gone bad. Only because chocolate is legal. There are plenty of Meth deals that have gone bad. But sure in principal agree - and think government should get out of regulating our personal lives. I think government has a role to play in enforcing correct labeling and ingredients (according to labeling) that it should publish standards and issue warnings. But not enforce monopolies - as it does with medical dental practice, and the drug sector for example. We agree on this. Bruno 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. Yes I can, I just did. A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel, which is the antithesis of freedom. There is no freedom in a market dominated by ruthless criminality. Don't let those colored sunglasses blind you. But sure, as you said; it's a matter of tastes. Not my choice; I think there are much better flavors than your free market... that Ayn Rand blood stew smothered in a rich topping of greed. Chris de Morsella 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. 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
Liz, you are doing the same thing, Chris does, which, when confronted with someone who disagrees with their world view, hurls snarky accusations. This is not a good thing, but I do admit, yourself, Chris, and me, are, at times, ruled by our amygdala, our limbic systems. This is part of being a human being as well as a primate. In this case, I don't wish to hand even more power over to people who rule us, who win votes by giving out goodies, to the underclasses, and getting pay-off by billionaires, like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett the 3rd, their world views are sometimes..hostile to what we middle classes know as our best interests. Hence, the neo-Stalinist tag, in response to Chris' Duck Dynasty accusation, was me getting down to the level of insults back to him. Your Adolf accusation is enjoyable to me, and I shall be happy to tell you why (intentionally snarky as it was). I remember the old, Heimat show, and thought it was so-so, but it was a late 80's show/early 90's and was ok. Many of my relatives went up those smokestacks, so there's that. Chris hurls crap, so I hurl it back, this is an old primate tradition, and I hope you appreciate it. Turning the other cheek is not always a wise thing to do, so I likely, shan't. Again, the statist neo-Stalinist thing I am cool with, since as you've pointed out, the progressive mind-set likes to hurl the adolf slander, so I decided to go forward with my counter-accusation. My counter-accusation happens to be spot-on, unlike Chris's dig that I was Pappy whatever, from Duck Dynasty, which of course would then go to a KKK thing, and from there, to jackboots, and einsatz gruppen. The neo-stalin thing is accurate in the case of state worship, the imposition of dictatorship for the excuse of problem-solving, and the rule by party members and the super rich. This I have trouble with, but as a micron, fear not, I have no influence, or power to alter anything in Chris's favor, or against him. I don't like attaching ideology to technology, though, but I suppose it can't be helped? So you think anyone who wants cleaner energy is a Stalinist...? Did anyone mention that Hitler liked to turn people he didn't like into air pollution (remember the line in Heimat about certain people going up the chimney - the kids who overheard it probably thought it was a weird reference to Santa). So in a nutshell you're pro-Hitler, and your opponents are pro-Stalin. Phew. I'm glad we've sorted that out without resorting to any ad hominem nonsense. My advice to you is, don't try to invade Moscow. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Mar 8, 2014 6:50 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 9 March 2014 11:06, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Well, your comment, (the Duck Dynasty thing) is an earmark of the wannabe Stalinists, who pursue policy not because it makes sense, or that its cognitive, but rather, that it fits the ideology/faith. Science is a method, not a faith, and solar power, needs to be a potential solution, and not an act of supplication. I wasn't being emotional and not even now. What you've stated before is just an earmark of what passes for public policy, nowadays. The Koch brothers mantra, with which you pin me with, is as pleasant as the George Soros puppets, that I identify the neo-Stalinists with, (ideology: The Super Rich and Party Members Rule). In fact, the stalinoids have developed sweaty, naughty parts, now that the Koch's have adapted George Soros's and Saul Alinsky tactics for themselves. Its a blade that slices both ways, like a bowie knife. A+B=B+A sort of things. Last, enough of the regular people of the world, because the IPCC predictions have failed, are disbelieving more and more, in AGW. My view is that throwing up pollution and particulates can be good for us, but probably not a good reason to let the stalinoids help us by putting their boots on our collective necks. So you think anyone who wants cleaner energy is a Stalinist...? Did anyone mention that Hitler liked to turn people he didn't like into air pollution (remember the line in Heimat about certain people going up the chimney - the kids who overheard it probably thought it was a weird reference to Santa). So in a nutshell you're pro-Hitler, and your opponents are pro-Stalin. Phew. I'm glad we've sorted that out without resorting to any ad hominem nonsense. My advice to you is, don't try to invade Moscow. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
On 08 Mar 2014, at 12:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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.) Liz, people with rich internal lives tend to come off as shy and awkward. In the end, maybe the manipulators deserve our pity more than anything else. I suspect that most of what they do is out of fear. They are stuck in an existence ruled by status anxiety. I don't envy that... I pity them indeed, especially the victim-accomplices of the manipulator, which are chosen so that they have everything to lose if they recognize the facts. I pity the harasser, but more so all its victims. They know that, and this can only make them hating me more, of course. I gave them hundred of friendly propositions of meeting and discussion, but they never answered. I never met them neither before nor after the facts, except as student many years before, when following their course, and without any problem. Einstein said once that the bad guys are less grave than the cowards who let them do their sinister acts. yet, I understand the cowards, and feel no hate for them. It just makes me sad, especially that it makes possible for very bad people to demolish so many nice people, for so many years. Bruno Have a nice weekend! Telmo. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: MODAL Last exercise
On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:20, LizR wrote:
On 6 March 2014 22:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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?
That would contradict Kripke semantics. it says that []p is true in
alpha IFF p is true in all worlds accessible from alpha (and in this
case alpha does not access to itself, and so the falsity of p in alpha
does not entails ~[]p is true in alpha. Indeed, as p is true in all
beta such that alpha R beta, we do have []p true in alpha.
I think you were just thinking with Leibniz semantics.
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.
OK :)
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.
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)
You lost me, here. You suppose R transitive, and I guess you are
trying to prove that []p - [][]p has to be true in all the worlds A,
B and C, and this for any valuations V.
It is simpler to assume that you have a counter-example (a world in
which []p - [][]p is false), and get a contradiction from that (by
absurdum).
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.
In your little structure, but is it clear if that is preserved in all
transitive multiverses?
And that implies [][]p for all worlds accessible from A, including C
(trivially).
Isn't that what I was trying to prove?
Not sure. A bit fuzzy. The question is more are you convinced
yourself by your reasoning?.
Or have I just wandered off into a cul-de-sac myself?
No worry. It is very good that you seem aware you have not yet make a
proof.
More on this in the sequel.
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: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll let him speak for himself. Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:52:32 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance depend on how humans see the world? If so I disagree, Edgar Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this. In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: 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
Let me try that again: On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:08 AM, ghib...@gmail.com 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. Hi John, that was nearly half a billion years ago. Go back a couple or three billion and the Co2 level was 20 times more than today. The Sun has been getting hotter over the same period. More than 20 percent hotter today than when co2 was 20 times denser in the atmosphere. The climate has remained roughly stable over the same period. The climate has remained stable?? Take a look at this graph that shows global temperatures over the last 900 million years: http://www.google.com/imgres?lrsafe=imagessa=Xhl=enas_qdr=alltbm=ischtbnid=dxfUyQfAJcSA2M%3Aimgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdrtimball.com%2F2011%2Fipcc-exclusions-and-inclusions-of-climate-mechanisms-are-both-failures%2Fdocid=7PIkRDk-CJD4GMimgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdrtimball.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Festimated-global-temperature-over-900-million-years.jpgw=600h=393ei=PJAcU7vxC4O42wWK14HoBQzoom=1ved=0CGkQhBwwBwiact=rcdur=8297page=1start=0ndsp=32 Or if that's going back too far for your tastes tale a look at at temperatures over the last 10,000 years: http://www.google.com/imgres?lrsafe=imagessa=Xhl=enas_qdr=alltbm=ischtbnid=SOadANpetBK6qM%3Aimgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjoannenova.com.au%2F2010%2F02%2Fthe-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings%2Fdocid=UrLd2hoOeD7sWMimgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjonova.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgraphs%2Flappi%2Fgisp-last-1-new.pngw=829h=493ei=PJAcU7vxC4O42wWK14HoBQzoom=1ved=0CF0QhBwwAwiact=rcdur=1444page=1start=0ndsp=32 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 way the future was
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:09:32 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 9 March 2014 00:18, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: this is what the Clash predicted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk I stumbled on itconsidering it's meant to be Punk, I was surprised how good it is. Good vocals What on earth do you mean? Of course punk is good (I think of the Clash as one of the less good examples myself, London Calling is definitely so-so imho). Siouxsie and the Banshees (listen to Once upon a time for the best tracks), the Pretenders (especially their first album), Ian Dury and the Blockheads, the Stranglers, the Go-gos, X-ray spex ... to name but a few ... all good musicians liberated by the new wave ... or going back earlier we have the Velvet Underground, arguably the proto-punks (or maybe proto-Goths...or indeed proto-almost-everything-that-the-Beatles-weren't-proto), not to mention the wonderful Iggy Pop and I guess Blondie and Sonic Youth, to take two ends of the spectrum. And the Flaming Lips. And then you can look at all the bands and individuals influenced by punk, from Grunge to House to Grindcore to Black Metal to whatever the kids are listening to now (Lorde, mainly, it seems, who went to the same school as my son :) This is looking at the first ever copy of I.D. magazine tee hee. That might not be a comprehensible point to make.it's just that I remember seeing what must have been an earlier issue at the time...looked like a load of paper stapled together. Each page was made up of a rack of snapshots of people photographed on the street just for catching the eye for being different. The quality of everything from the paper, the print, the picture quality, staples, even the people In the shots most dimensions wasn't necessarily better than dirt. But it was about one dimension of the person in the picture, only. Authenticity. To a peer...another young person. Doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things..not meant to ei itther. But it was very important at the timewho was authentic. Looks have always mattered a lot, because in the end everything was always about getting laid. But being a looker and a scuzzbucket wouldn't get you in for long. Being authentic and scuzzbucket would. Being authentic and ugly as shit would get you in. Obviously being authenatic and drop dead gorgeous was to be the best. That was me and you. Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. Yeah what a tosser. But it's definitely a case of not knowing what would have been the same/different had he not walked the earth. Happy days! Happy memories. Being different, dressing different, making your own music, writing your own lyrics. It's something kids marv el ad,t when a band does it today. It was the norm back in the day. A lucky time that way. Black music was something to marvel at, so diverse, so experimental, so leading the way. It just vanished , I hope it comes back one day. Simon Cowell says the average quality is higher than ever, but a sausage factory does that Yes indeed. But I see that spark in Lorde and even dear Lady Gaga. To quote Lorde, not verbatim, She had to do a photoshoot (being famous now and all that) and the photographer kept saying 'Smile!' and after a while she said, 'I got here because I did my own thing, and I'm not smiling because you tell me to!' - and she didn't, and we have photos to prove it. PS And she's on the cover of Rolling Stone wearing a Cramps T-shirt! That girl is definitely my hero now, even if I didn't like her music - I thought the Cramps were only for weirdos like me. (In a couple of years she WILL be playing Morticia Addams, either on film or in real life.) I don't know much of her music but I saw her on a talk show I never normally watch, and liked her a lot. There's a lot of great performers, easily as good as the best back then. Christine aguil-wtf her name is was brilliant. Many more. But here the middle is matters a lot IMHO, and what the middle is about. For the young I mean. Beca use that's how most of them get to be young in the world. It's not about the stars, it's about them. In a sense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: 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 existence 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. Come on man nobody is going to kill someone else over a bar of chocolate Of course they will! Chocolate is a multibillion dollar industry and there is a very strong demand for it that will not disappear just because some pinhead in government passes a law against it. Legal or illegal whenever there is a demand for product X, prostitution, drugs, pirate DVDs, pornography, chocolate bars or whatever, there will always be people willing to cater to that demand if the price is right. There are no chocolate deals gone bad. Absolutely untrue, there are plenty of chocolate deals that go bad and when they do the parties involved sue each other, that's why the big candy companies have hundreds of lawyers on their payrole. But because Meth dealers are selling a product that somebody in government has deemed illegal they do not have that option and must resort to what Clausewitzeuphemistically called diplomacy by other means, that is to say they make the other party an offer they can't refuse. I think government has a role to play in enforcing correct labeling and ingredients I pretty much agree with perhaps a few caveats. But not enforce monopolies - as it does with medical dental practice, and the drug sector for example. Agreed. A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel True, but the blackness of the market has nothing to do with the nature of the commodity being transacted, it's black because somebody in government decided to make it black. Tobacco has killed many orders of magnitude more people than Meth and all other illegal drugs put together, but the market for tobacco is not black because somebody in government decided that particular drug is not illegal; so when tobacco deals go bad they don't machine gun each other, they sue each other. 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
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel True, but the blackness of the market has nothing to do with the nature of the commodity being transacted, it's black because somebody in government decided to make it black. Tobacco has killed many orders of magnitude more people than Meth and all other illegal drugs put together, but the market for tobacco is not black because somebody in government decided that particular drug is not illegal; so when tobacco deals go bad they don't machine gun each other, they sue each other. John, I repeat my question from earlier--if you disapprove of laws to make it illegal for people to make and sell drugs that lawmakers judge too damaging to society, do you also disapprove of laws to make it illegal for people to make and sell pharmaceutical drugs that some pharmaceutical company owns the patent for and wants to have exclusive rights to sell at a much higher cost than the cost of manufacture? Is the black market in drugs that violates pharmaceutical companies' intellectual property an example of the free market at work, or not? 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 options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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? Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or computationalism. At each branching only one instance of you continue, you say, but that does not accord well with the simplest explanation of the two slits experience. You will have to explain why the superpositions act in the micro and not the macro, and this needs big changes in QM (= SWE), or even bigger to computationalism. But you have to explain this anyway; except the question is transformed into why do I only experience one reality. Presumably the answer is in decoherence and the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix becoming very small (or maybe even zero). Once you have this answer then you can look at the density matrix, as Omnes does, and say, QM is a probabilistic theory, so it predicts probabilities. What did you expect? My point is that these sharp questions are asked of QM because it is a mature theory with lots of very accurate predictions, but comp as a new speculative theory kind of gets a free ride on the very same questions, e.g. why do we not experience superpositions? Why isn't there a superposition of the M-guy and the W-guy according to comp. How can consciousness be instantiated by physical processes? Most people on this list just assume it can't and dismiss the very idea as mere physicalism. But they don't ask how can consciousness be instantiated by infinite threads of computation - that's mysterious and consciousness is mysterious, so it's OK. If not, you can always consistently assume everything is done by a God to fit your favorite philosophical expectations. You can do that, *logically*, but this is no more truth research, but wishful thinking. But you know that is not what is done. QM predicts probability distributions that are confirmed to many decimal places. QFT predicts some measured values to 11 decimal places. And you rely on QM to explain the world in in you theory of comp. Your approach is to explain QM and then let QM do the rest of the work - which is fine. But my point is that QM can still do the work even if it's a probabilistic theory. So unless comp can make some better predictions than comp it's just an interpretation and it's trading off a distaste for randomness (a very restricted and well defined randomness) for a love of everythingism. Which is why I hope comp can predict something about consciousness; where it may offer something beyond just interpretation. Brent Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Liz, you are doing the same thing, Chris does, which, when confronted with someone who disagrees with their world view, hurls snarky accusations. This is not a good thing, but I do admit, yourself, Chris, and me, are, at times, ruled by our amygdala, our limbic systems. This is part of being a human being as well as a primate. In this case, I don't wish to hand even more power over to people who rule us, who win votes by giving out goodies, to the underclasses, and getting pay-off by billionaires, like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett the 3rd, their world views are sometimes..hostile to what we middle classes know as our best interests. Hence, the neo-Stalinist tag, in response to Chris' Duck Dynasty accusation, was me getting down to the level of insults back to him. Your Adolf accusation is enjoyable to me, and I shall be happy to tell you why (intentionally snarky as it was). Spudboy - or whomever you really are - if you recall you compared graphing the average extinction rate to adding up the average penis length to see if it measured up to the moon. I demolished your argument - with facts and by showing how utterly stupid it was. It is not a political world view - which I believe you believe everything amounts to - but rather it is a numeric ratio arrived at based on the best scientific evidence for past extinction rates that we have. And you compare it to penis size, and suggest that it is some evil green political thing? What kind of response DID you expect from me. The fact that you have nothing factual or reasoned to say in response, besides retreating into the polemic of your Tea Party shell leads me to conclude that this is how you operate. Keep to the facts. I demolished every single one of your assertions and backed up what I argued with statistics and facts. You have not responded to my fact based deconstruction of the Tea Party talking points you foolishly believe, but instead have chosen to feel hurt. But on the fact of the matter - on the assertions you made - you have nothing to say, which I take to mean as a tacit admission on your part that you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter and feel that it is better for your cause to turn this into the kind of fact free discussion that is rooted instead in ideology. and the putative ideology (Stalinism) you decide others MUST be followers of when they disagree with your views. Idiotic, childish behavior is what this amounts to. Stick to the facts. You want to argue that the Shale gas and oil play are going to turn America into the Saudi Arabia of tomorrow - then by all means try to do so AND I will again demolish your foolish assertions with hard physical based statistics. with the cold water of reality. I am still waiting for a response on that and take your silence to mean that you have nothing intelligent to say on it and that your knowledge of energy matters is ankle deep. I remember the old, Heimat show, and thought it was so-so, but it was a late 80's show/early 90's and was ok. Many of my relatives went up those smokestacks, so there's that. Chris hurls crap, so I hurl it back, this is an old primate tradition, and I hope you appreciate it. Turning the other cheek is not always a wise thing to do, so I likely, shan't. Again, the statist neo-Stalinist thing I am cool with, since as you've pointed out, the progressive mind-set likes to hurl the adolf slander, so I decided to go forward with my counter-accusation. My counter-accusation happens to be spot-on, unlike Chris's dig that I was Pappy whatever, from Duck Dynasty, which of course would then go to a KKK thing, and from there, to jackboots, and einsatz gruppen. The neo-stalin thing is accurate in the case of state worship, the imposition of dictatorship for the excuse of problem-solving, and the rule by party members and the super rich. This I have trouble with, but as a micron, fear not, I have no influence, or power to alter anything in Chris's favor, or against him. I don't like attaching ideology to technology, though, but I suppose it can't be helped? Screw Duck Dynasty - it is a stupid reality TV show with a publicly loud mouthed racist, homophobic bearded arsehole who calls himself the patriarch as its star. Did I compare you to him? No, actually I did not, you seem to have problems comprehending what you read - I have noticed - I believe (not worth it to me to go back and actually look) I made some snarky comment that this is a free country and you are free to believe any BS you want including that the earth is flat or that the world was created by a Duck Dynasty looking patriarch on a cloud six thousand years ago. You certainly do seem to believe in a lot of fact challenged notions, a few of which I had just carefully deconstructed - and you have had nothing to say about that. very telling IMO. Is not a stretch Grow
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:34 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 existence 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. Come on man nobody is going to kill someone else over a bar of chocolate Of course they will! Chocolate is a multibillion dollar industry and there is a very strong demand for it that will not disappear just because some pinhead in government passes a law against it. Legal or illegal whenever there is a demand for product X, prostitution, drugs, pirate DVDs, pornography, chocolate bars or whatever, there will always be people willing to cater to that demand if the price is right. John we are going to have to disagree on that. A heroin junkie will do almost anything to get their next fix. so will an alcoholic for that matter (and if you had said alcohol I would have, of course very much agreed with you), but Chocolate? Come on man be serious. I know it is a multi-billion dollar industry and that sure a black market for it would spring into existence - and at some level criminality would take control. But at the street level - you will never find chocolate junkies mugging little old ladies or prostituting themselves for a few dollars (like crack whores do) to get the bar of chocolate they crave. Just imagining this scenario brings me to fits of laughter. There are no chocolate deals gone bad. Absolutely untrue, there are plenty of chocolate deals that go bad and when they do the parties involved sue each other, that's why the big candy companies have hundreds of lawyers on their payrole. But because Meth dealers are selling a product that somebody in government has deemed illegal they do not have that option and must resort to what Clausewitz euphemistically called diplomacy by other means, that is to say they make the other party an offer they can't refuse. Sure, in principal we agree - but then on the other hand Methamphetamines and Chocolate have very different effects on the people who become addicted to them. The meth head will do almost anything - and they do - they murder, they steal, they prostitute themselves the whole shebang; chocolate addicts are not going to start going out and committing street crime in order to get their fix. And this IS the difference. Again if you had used the example of alcohol; I would have agreed that the alcoholic would break into a car to steal a stereo to hawk in order to by their black market possibly adulterated bottle of moonshine. I think government has a role to play in enforcing correct labeling and ingredients I pretty much agree with perhaps a few caveats. Think of it as a reporting function. But not enforce monopolies - as it does with medical dental practice, and the drug sector for example. Agreed. A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel True, but the blackness of the market has nothing to do with the nature of the commodity being transacted, it's black because somebody in government decided to make it black. Tobacco has killed many orders of magnitude more people than Meth and all other illegal drugs put together, but the market for tobacco is not black because somebody in government decided that particular drug is not illegal; so when tobacco deals go bad they don't machine gun each other, they sue each other. Basically I agree. but come on man, Chocolate? The image of the crazed methhead needing a fix - has some basis in reality. that will never translate into a chocolate-head behavioral analogue. Other legal drugs (including Tobacco) are much better examples. But essentially, in broad strokes I think we are more or less in agreement on this matter. The government has no business legislating morality or intruding into the bedroom or the personal lives and habits of people. Most of the people currently in prison in this country are in prison for non-violent drug offenses - mostly intent to sell raps. It is a travesty of justice and has imposed a massive social and human cost on us all. It is stupid policy. 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
RE: The way the future was
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ghib...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:31 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The way the future was On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:09:32 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 9 March 2014 00:18, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: this is what the Clash predicted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk I stumbled on itconsidering it's meant to be Punk, I was surprised how good it is. Good vocals What on earth do you mean? Of course punk is good (I think of the Clash as one of the less good examples myself, London Calling is definitely so-so imho). Siouxsie and the Banshees (listen to Once upon a time for the best tracks), the Pretenders (especially their first album), Ian Dury and the Blockheads, the Stranglers, the Go-gos, X-ray spex ... to name but a few ... all good musicians liberated by the new wave ... or going back earlier we have the Velvet Underground, arguably the proto-punks (or maybe proto-Goths...or indeed proto-almost-everything-that-the-Beatles-weren't-proto), not to mention the wonderful Iggy Pop and I guess Blondie and Sonic Youth, to take two ends of the spectrum. And the Flaming Lips. And then you can look at all the bands and individuals influenced by punk, from Grunge to House to Grindcore to Black Metal to whatever the kids are listening to now (Lorde, mainly, it seems, who went to the same school as my son :) Don’t forget the original punk song – IMO – Pushing too Hard by the Seeds – first released as a single way back in 1965. Definitely a precursor to Grunge and Punk. I would also mention the Thirteenth Floor Elevators (Rocky Erickson’s first band – before they locked him up in an insane asylum in Texas for having some Marijuana seeds in his car) and tortured him with electro shock therapy. The Stooges (Iggy Pops original band) and the MC5 another hard core Detroit band form the same era – also are influential deep roots of Punk Grunge and Metal as well. Jimi Hendrix bears mentioning too – he took the guitar to a new place (it is a tragedy that he died so soon) Chris This is looking at the first ever copy of I.D. magazine tee hee. That might not be a comprehensible point to make.it's just that I remember seeing what must have been an earlier issue at the time...looked like a load of paper stapled together. Each page was made up of a rack of snapshots of people photographed on the street just for catching the eye for being different. The quality of everything from the paper, the print, the picture quality, staples, even the people In the shots most dimensions wasn't necessarily better than dirt. But it was about one dimension of the person in the picture, only. Authenticity. To a peer...another young person. Doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things..not meant to ei itther. But it was very important at the timewho was authentic. Looks have always mattered a lot, because in the end everything was always about getting laid. But being a looker and a scuzzbucket wouldn't get you in for long. Being authentic and scuzzbucket would. Being authentic and ugly as shit would get you in. Obviously being authenatic and drop dead gorgeous was to be the best. That was me and you. Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. Yeah what a tosser. But it's definitely a case of not knowing what would have been the same/different had he not walked the earth. Happy days! Happy memories. Being different, dressing different, making your own music, writing your own lyrics. It's something kids marv el ad,t when a band does it today. It was the norm back in the day. A lucky time that way. Black music was something to marvel at, so diverse, so experimental, so leading the way. It just vanished , I hope it comes back one day. Simon Cowell says the average quality is higher than ever, but a sausage factory does that Yes indeed. But I see that spark in Lorde and even dear Lady Gaga. To quote Lorde, not verbatim, She had to do a photoshoot (being famous now and all that) and the photographer kept saying 'Smile!' and after a while she said, 'I got here because I did my own thing, and I'm not smiling because you tell me to!' - and she didn't, and we have photos to prove it. PS And she's on the cover of Rolling Stone wearing a Cramps T-shirt! That girl is definitely my hero now, even if I didn't like her music - I thought the Cramps were only for weirdos like me. (In a couple of years she WILL be playing Morticia Addams, either on film or in real life.) I don't know much of her music
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in The Fabric of Reality. (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.) Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly Not willy nilly, certainly. However the assumption that they reflect an actual reality is only an assumption, partly because it's impossible to prove and partly because, in any case, all theories are open to revision. (This is why people keep asking you for some testable predictions of p-time and Bruno for testable predictions of comp, for example.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The way the future was
Yes, there were quite a few punk-style bands in the 60s, although memory fails me apart from the obvious, the Velvet Underground and associated spinoffs (John Cale in particular). One song in particular - I just remember this line about an ice cream cone, but the rest escapes me. On 10 March 2014 08:27, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *ghib...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:31 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: The way the future was On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:09:32 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 9 March 2014 00:18, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: this is what the Clash predicted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk I stumbled on itconsidering it's meant to be Punk, I was surprised how good it is. Good vocals What on earth do you mean? Of course punk is good (I think of the Clash as one of the less good examples myself, London Calling is definitely so-so imho). Siouxsie and the Banshees (listen to Once upon a time for the best tracks), the Pretenders (especially their first album), Ian Dury and the Blockheads, the Stranglers, the Go-gos, X-ray spex ... to name but a few ... all good musicians liberated by the new wave ... or going back earlier we have the Velvet Underground, arguably the proto-punks (or maybe proto-Goths...or indeed proto-almost-everything-that-the-Beatles-weren't-proto), not to mention the wonderful Iggy Pop and I guess Blondie and Sonic Youth, to take two ends of the spectrum. And the Flaming Lips. And then you can look at all the bands and individuals influenced by punk, from Grunge to House to Grindcore to Black Metal to whatever the kids are listening to now (Lorde, mainly, it seems, who went to the same school as my son :) Don't forget the original punk song - IMO - Pushing too Hard by the Seeds - first released as a single way back in 1965. Definitely a precursor to Grunge and Punk. I would also mention the Thirteenth Floor Elevators (Rocky Erickson's first band - before they locked him up in an insane asylum in Texas for having some Marijuana seeds in his car) and tortured him with electro shock therapy. The Stooges (Iggy Pops original band) and the MC5 another hard core Detroit band form the same era - also are influential deep roots of Punk Grunge and Metal as well. Jimi Hendrix bears mentioning too - he took the guitar to a new place (it is a tragedy that he died so soon) Chris This is looking at the first ever copy of I.D. magazine tee hee. That might not be a comprehensible point to make.it's just that I remember seeing what must have been an earlier issue at the time...looked like a load of paper stapled together. Each page was made up of a rack of snapshots of people photographed on the street just for catching the eye for being different. The quality of everything from the paper, the print, the picture quality, staples, even the people In the shots most dimensions wasn't necessarily better than dirt. But it was about one dimension of the person in the picture, only. Authenticity. To a peer...another young person. Doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things..not meant to ei itther. But it was very important at the timewho was authentic. Looks have always mattered a lot, because in the end everything was always about getting laid. But being a looker and a scuzzbucket wouldn't get you in for long. Being authentic and scuzzbucket would. Being authentic and ugly as shit would get you in. Obviously being authenatic and drop dead gorgeous was to be the best. That was me and you. Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing away. The world was never the same. Yeah what a tosser. But it's definitely a case of not knowing what would have been the same/different had he not walked the earth. Happy days! Happy memories. Being different, dressing different, making your own music, writing your own lyrics. It's something kids marv el ad,t when a band does it today. It was the norm back in the day. A lucky time that way. Black music was something to marvel at, so diverse, so experimental, so leading the way. It just vanished , I hope it comes back one day. Simon Cowell says the average quality is higher than ever, but a sausage factory does that Yes indeed. But I see that spark in Lorde and even dear Lady Gaga. To quote Lorde, not verbatim, She had to do a photoshoot (being famous now and all that) and the photographer kept saying 'Smile!' and after a while she said, 'I got here because I did my own thing, and I'm not smiling because you tell me to!' - and she didn't, and we
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 10 March 2014 01:39, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Liz, you are doing the same thing, Chris does, which, when confronted with someone who disagrees with their world view, hurls snarky accusations. Actually I was satirising the paragraph of yours I quoted, which mentioned Stalin at least 3 times. I don't really think you are a Nazi, thank Godwin - but then you should not call disagreers Stalinists, because it is at best a caricature. As were my satirical comments, but I did it intentionally. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in The Fabric of Reality. (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.) Deutsch pushes it strongly in The Beginning of Infinity, but I have some reservations about his emphasis. I think what makes a theory good is multidimensional: predictive power, scope, testability, and consilience. It seems that Deutsch recognizes these factors as part of what makes a good explanation, but explanation invites an interpretation of psychological satisfaction. Many people think God did it. is a great explanation because it works as psychological satisfaction. It's got lots of scope, works every time, and is consilient with almost everything. It just fails miserably on predictive power and testability. I know Deutsch doesn't mean it this way, but it's why I don't like his emphasis on the word explanation over the more neutral theory. Brent Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly Not willy nilly, certainly. However the assumption that they reflect an actual reality is only an assumption, partly because it's impossible to prove and partly because, in any case, all theories are open to revision. (This is why people keep asking you for some testable predictions of p-time and Bruno for testable predictions of comp, for example.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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.
On 10 March 2014 10:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in The Fabric of Reality. (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.) Deutsch pushes it strongly in The Beginning of Infinity, but I have some reservations about his emphasis. I think what makes a theory good is multidimensional: predictive power, scope, testability, and consilience. It seems that Deutsch recognizes these factors as part of what makes a good explanation, but explanation invites an interpretation of psychological satisfaction. Many people think God did it. is a great explanation because it works as psychological satisfaction. It's got lots of scope, works every time, and is consilient with almost everything. It just fails miserably on predictive power and testability. I know Deutsch doesn't mean it this way, but it's why I don't like his emphasis on the word explanation over the more neutral theory. But are you happy with what he says apart from his nomenclature? (If so, I guess his explanation has achieved psychological satisfaction...) God did it isn't a theory or an explanation unless it goes into more depth about what God is, why it exists and how it does things, and uses these details to make some testable predictions that will separate it out from other theories (Allah did it, Zeus did it, Odin did it, Amaterasu did it, etc). Actually GDI has a whole raft of predictions about how God will take care of his chosen group, how he will end the world in, er, some time soon, how he created the world in 7 days, how he will intercede if you pray hard enough, etc. None of which so far appear to have been borne out, making GDI both testable and fallible, also tested and failed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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 way the future was
Sorry, that wasn't quite what I meant. I should have said there were some 60s songs that were fairly punk style, one of which mentioned an ice cream cone but I can't remember anything else about it. As a separate point, Cale was (probably) the most punkish of the Velvets imho - Leaving it up to you comes to mind as an example, but he was (and perhaps still is) very experimental in all sorts of ways. More of an attitude than a musical style, however. I saw him live once and he still had it, that could only have been about 10 years ago. And yes when I mentioned Iggy Pop I was thinking mainly of the Stooges, I have Raw power somewhere - with the volume on the CD higher than most (I guess it goes up to 11 :-) Which is a bit ironic because my copy of Iggy's Repo Man theme is quieter than almost anything else in my collection. Why can't CDs have consistent volume for those of us who turn them into a collection of MP3s? On 10 March 2014 10:13, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, there were quite a few punk-style bands in the 60s, although memory fails me apart from the obvious, the Velvet Underground and associated spinoffs (John Cale in particular). One song in particular - I just remember this line about an ice cream cone, but the rest escapes me. On 10 March 2014 08:27, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *ghib...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:31 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: The way the future was On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:09:32 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: On 9 March 2014 00:18, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: this is what the Clash predicted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk I stumbled on itconsidering it's meant to be Punk, I was surprised how good it is. Good vocals What on earth do you mean? Of course punk is good (I think of the Clash as one of the less good examples myself, London Calling is definitely so-so imho). Siouxsie and the Banshees (listen to Once upon a time for the best tracks), the Pretenders (especially their first album), Ian Dury and the Blockheads, the Stranglers, the Go-gos, X-ray spex ... to name but a few ... all good musicians liberated by the new wave ... or going back earlier we have the Velvet Underground, arguably the proto-punks (or maybe proto-Goths...or indeed proto-almost-everything-that-the-Beatles-weren't-proto), not to mention the wonderful Iggy Pop and I guess Blondie and Sonic Youth, to take two ends of the spectrum. And the Flaming Lips. And then you can look at all the bands and individuals influenced by punk, from Grunge to House to Grindcore to Black Metal to whatever the kids are listening to now (Lorde, mainly, it seems, who went to the same school as my son :) Don't forget the original punk song - IMO - Pushing too Hard by the Seeds - first released as a single way back in 1965. Definitely a precursor to Grunge and Punk. I would also mention the Thirteenth Floor Elevators (Rocky Erickson's first band - before they locked him up in an insane asylum in Texas for having some Marijuana seeds in his car) and tortured him with electro shock therapy. The Stooges (Iggy Pops original band) and the MC5 another hard core Detroit band form the same era - also are influential deep roots of Punk Grunge and Metal as well. Jimi Hendrix bears mentioning too - he took the guitar to a new place (it is a tragedy that he died so soon) Chris This is looking at the first ever copy of I.D. magazine tee hee. That might not be a comprehensible point to make.it's just that I remember seeing what must have been an earlier issue at the time...looked like a load of paper stapled together. Each page was made up of a rack of snapshots of people photographed on the street just for catching the eye for being different. The quality of everything from the paper, the print, the picture quality, staples, even the people In the shots most dimensions wasn't necessarily better than dirt. But it was about one dimension of the person in the picture, only. Authenticity. To a peer...another young person. Doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things..not meant to ei itther. But it was very important at the timewho was authentic. Looks have always mattered a lot, because in the end everything was always about getting laid. But being a looker and a scuzzbucket wouldn't get you in for long. Being authentic and scuzzbucket would. Being authentic and ugly as shit would get you in. Obviously being authenatic and drop dead gorgeous was to be the best. That was me and you. Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s ?) but bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On 3/9/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 10:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/9/2014 1:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 02:15, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. This is true. David Deutsch argues for this view convincingly in The Fabric of Reality. (Russell and Brent are not disputing this view as a practical approach, I think, they are just pointing out that there are metaphysical assumptions built into itunless they correct me on this.) Deutsch pushes it strongly in The Beginning of Infinity, but I have some reservations about his emphasis. I think what makes a theory good is multidimensional: predictive power, scope, testability, and consilience. It seems that Deutsch recognizes these factors as part of what makes a good explanation, but explanation invites an interpretation of psychological satisfaction. Many people think God did it. is a great explanation because it works as psychological satisfaction. It's got lots of scope, works every time, and is consilient with almost everything. It just fails miserably on predictive power and testability. I know Deutsch doesn't mean it this way, but it's why I don't like his emphasis on the word explanation over the more neutral theory. But are you happy with what he says apart from his nomenclature? (If so, I guess his explanation has achieved psychological satisfaction...) God did it isn't a theory or an explanation unless it goes into more depth about what God is, why it exists and how it does things, and uses these details to make some testable predictions that will separate it out from other theories (Allah did it, Zeus did it, Odin did it, Amaterasu did it, etc). Actually GDI has a whole raft of predictions about how God will take care of his chosen group, how he will end the world in, er, some time soon, how he created the world in 7 days, how he will intercede if you pray hard enough, etc. None of which so far appear to have been borne out, making GDI both testable and fallible, also tested and failed. The predictions have all failed, but the *explanations* are batting a thousand. There's a whole industry called apologia turning them out as needed. 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.
On 10 March 2014 10:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/9/2014 2:40 PM, LizR wrote: God did it isn't a theory or an explanation unless it goes into more depth about what God is, why it exists and how it does things, and uses these details to make some testable predictions that will separate it out from other theories (Allah did it, Zeus did it, Odin did it, Amaterasu did it, etc). Actually GDI has a whole raft of predictions about how God will take care of his chosen group, how he will end the world in, er, some time soon, how he created the world in 7 days, how he will intercede if you pray hard enough, etc. None of which so far appear to have been borne out, making GDI both testable and fallible, also tested and failed. The predictions have all failed, but the *explanations* are batting a thousand. There's a whole industry called apologia turning them out as needed. By constantly changing them, yes. We have always been at war with Eastasia - I mean Oceana... Another important attribute of a good theory (or explanation) according to DD is that it should be hard - preferably impossible - to vary it without breaking it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MODAL Last exercise
I think I need the sequel. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
Yah. Its way too late. You have gotten me reflecting on the old saying by Tip Oneil, who said All politics is local. I would paraphrase this and say all politics is personel. I can observe two things, despite my diminished capacity. One is that the climate is not behaving at all like you been stating. Two, eventually fair amount of people will tire of the ruling classes to the rule of autocrats. -Original Message- From: Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 9, 2014 2:33 pm Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating From: everything-l...@googlegroups.comy [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com gt;gt;Liz, you are doing the same thing, Chris does, which, when confronted with someone who disagrees with their world view, hurls snarky accusations. This is not a good thing, but I do admit, yourself, Chris, and me, are, at times, ruled by our amygdala, our limbic systems. This is part of being a human being as well as a primate. In this case, I don't wish to hand even more power over to people who rule us, who win votes by giving out goodies, to the underclasses, and getting pay-off by billionaires, like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett the 3rd, their world views are sometimes..hostile to what we middle classes know as our best interests. Hence, the neo-Stalinist tag, in response to Chris' Duck Dynasty accusation, was me getting down to the level of insults back to him. Your Adolf accusation is enjoyable to me, and I shall be happy to tell you why (intentionally snarky as it was). Spudboy – or whomever you really are – if you recall you compared graphing the average extinction rate to adding up the average penis length to see if it measured up to the moon. I demolished your argument – with facts and by showing how utterly stupid it was. It is not a political world view – which I believe you believe everything amounts to – but rather it is a numeric ratio arrived at based on the best scientific evidence for past extinction rates that we have. And you compare it to penis size, and suggest that it is some evil green political thing?What kind of response DID you expect from me. The fact that you have nothing factual or reasoned to say in response, besides retreating into the polemic of your Tea Party shell leads me to conclude that this is how you operate.Keep to the facts. I demolished every single one of your assertions and backed up what I argued with statistics and facts. You have not responded to my fact based deconstruction of the Tea Party talking points you foolishly believe, but instead have chosen to feel hurt.But on the fact of the matter – on the assertions you made – you have nothing to say, which I take to mean as a tacit admission on your part that you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter and feel that it is better for your “cause” to turn this into the kind of fact free discussion that is rooted instead in ideology… and the putative ideology (Stalinism) you decide others MUST be followers of when they disagree with your views.Idiotic, childish behavior is what this amounts to.Stick to the facts. You want to argue that the Shale gas and oil play are going to turn America into the Saudi Arabia of tomorrow – then by all means try to do so AND I will again demolish your foolish assertions with hard physical based statistics… with the cold water of reality. I am still waiting for a response on that and take your silence to mean that you have nothing intelligent to say on it and that your knowledge of energy matters is ankle deep. I remember the old, Heimat show, and thought it was so-so, but it was a late 80's show/early 90's and was ok. Many of my relatives went up those smokestacks, so there's that. Chris hurls crap, so I hurl it back, this is an old primate tradition, and I hope you appreciate it. Turning the other cheek is not always a wise thing to do, so I likely, shan't. Again, the statist neo-Stalinist thing I am cool with, since as you've pointed out, the progressive mind-set likes to hurl the adolf slander, so I decided to go forward with my counter-accusation. My counter-accusation happens to be spot-on, unlike Chris's dig that I was Pappy whatever, from Duck Dynasty, which of course would then go to a KKK thing, and from there, to jackboots, and einsatz gruppen. The neo-stalin thing is accurate in the case of state worship, the imposition of dictatorship for the excuse of problem-solving, and the rule by party members and the super rich. This I have trouble with, but as a micron, fear not, I have no influence, or power to alter anything in Chris's favor, or against him. I don't like attaching ideology to technology, though, but I suppose it can't be helped? Screw Duck Dynasty – it is a stupid reality TV show with a publicly loud mouthed racist, homophobic bearded
Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Russell, Yes, but that is crazy because it assumes all theories are equally valid with which I disagree. Science selects theories based on which best explain the observable universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that theories DO reflect actual reality. They are not just made up by humans willy nilly I would be surprised if Brent, a physicist, disagrees with that but I'll let him speak for himself. Edgar Actually, both Brent and Liz made comments here which I broadly agree with, as well as pointing out David Deutsch's position, which I do find myself in disagreement, for much the same reasons they mentioned. I would describe myself as an agnostic realist, not an a-realist. There may very well be some external reality propping everything up, but if COMP is true, and more importantly, if our observed reality is some random selection from the space of all possible bits strings compatible with our existence (eg we are facing UD*), then the properties of that external reality are fundamentally unknowable. It is about as useful a hypothesis as a deist God who doesn't interfere in the running of the universe. One of David's strongest arguments in favour of a genuine external reality is the fact that the physical universe seems incapable of computing things that Turing machines are incapable of. His counter example is the Infinity Hotel universe, based on the popular Infinity Hotel story used to introduce Cantor's paradise to maths students. The Infinity Hotel is capable of computing things which are impossible in our universe, or in any Turning machine, for that matter. It is an example of a hypercomputer. This is not a problem with COMP, which axiomatically supposes the conventional Turing model of computation is all that exists. But it may be an issue for my somewhat more general Nothing model of all bitstrings, as a priori, there is no restriction of computational models. It remains an open problem to show whether the Nothing naturally implies the Turing model, or the converse, that hypercomputers are indeed possible in that idea (in which case my thesis would be refuted, and David would essentially be right). But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim. -- 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.
On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim. Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly so when you have to deal with teenagers...) For practical purposes we assume both intersubjective consistency and the existence of an external reality. However when discussing ontology it's best to remember that these are provisional hypotheses. (It's probably best *not* to remember that while crossing the road, though!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
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. But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent with the FPI, without naming it. Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept that. I mean personally, I would argue that the vocabulary used is identical between you and Greaves and she explicitly denies your probability distribution from the first person perspective. But a bigger problem for you raises its head if I put that to one side. if, as you claim, there is no substantive difference between your theory and Greaves' just because she has some other mechanism of deriving the bare quantities you want, then you may as well say that there is only a difference in terminology between your theory and any other interpretation of QM. After all they all deliver 0.5 by some now irrelevant metric too. You've just relugated your theory to the purely metaphysical. You're tacitly admitting that all these theories are just re-skins of the same underlying engine with bugger all to choose between them. In a way that is something that I have felt for a while. Everettian QM does not improve upon QM + collapse in the way say relativity improves on Newtonian physics. There is no concomitant improvement in predictive capability on offer. Its a purely theoretical change intended to smooth out conceptual difficulties but it can only do that by delivering further difficulties of its own. All your theories are scientifically irrelevant. Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb 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
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism that causes the collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it being gravitational) and therefore predicts that at some point that mechanism will kick in, so we can only have superpositions up to a particular size? While QM on its own (i.e. Everett) predicts that there is no collapse threshold - that if you can keep a system from decohering, it will remain in a superposition regardless of how large it is. So at some point QM+Collapse has to come up with a mechanism for collapse, and at that point it becomes testable, at least in theory (depending on our level of technology, I mean). On 10 March 2014 13:17, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: 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.But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent with the FPI, without naming it.* Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept that. I mean personally, I would argue that the vocabulary used is identical between you and Greaves and she explicitly denies your probability distribution from the first person perspective. But a bigger problem for you raises its head if I put that to one side. if, as you claim, there is no substantive difference between your theory and Greaves' just because she has some other mechanism of deriving the bare quantities you want, then you may as well say that there is only a difference in terminology between your theory and any other interpretation of QM. After all they all deliver 0.5 by some now irrelevant metric too. You've just relugated your theory to the purely metaphysical. You're tacitly admitting that all these theories are just re-skins of the same underlying engine with bugger all to choose between them. In a way that is something that I have felt for a while. Everettian QM does not improve upon QM + collapse in the way say relativity improves on Newtonian physics. There is no concomitant improvement in predictive capability on offer. Its a purely theoretical change intended to smooth out conceptual difficulties but it can only do that by delivering further difficulties of its own. All your theories are scientifically irrelevant. -- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb 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? Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or computationalism. At each branching only one instance of you continue, you say, but that does not accord well with the simplest explanation of the two slits experience. You will have to explain why the superpositions act in the micro and not the macro, and this needs big changes in QM (= SWE), or even bigger to computationalism. But you have to explain this anyway; except the question is transformed into why do I only experience one reality. Presumably the answer is in decoherence and the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix becoming very small (or maybe even zero). Once you have this answer then you can look at the density matrix, as Omnes does, and say, QM is a probabilistic theory, so it predicts probabilities. What did you expect? My point is that these sharp questions are asked of QM because it is a mature theory with lots of very accurate predictions, but comp as a new speculative theory kind
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism that causes the collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it being gravitational) and therefore predicts that at some point that mechanism will kick in, so we can only have superpositions up to a particular size? Just as there must be some mechanism that causes us to perceive only one reality, and not a superposition. Brent While QM on its own (i.e. Everett) predicts that there is no collapse threshold - that if you can keep a system from decohering, it will remain in a superposition regardless of how large it is. So at some point QM+Collapse has to come up with a mechanism for collapse, and at that point it becomes testable, at least in theory (depending on our level of technology, I mean). On 10 March 2014 13:17, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: 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./ But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent with the FPI, without naming it.* Funnily enough Bruno, if I was opportunistic I would just about accept that. I mean personally, I would argue that the vocabulary used is identical between you and Greaves and she explicitly denies your probability distribution from the first person perspective. But a bigger problem for you raises its head if I put that to one side. if, as you claim, there is no substantive difference between your theory and Greaves' just because she has some other mechanism of deriving the bare quantities you want, then you may as well say that there is only a difference in terminology between your theory and any other interpretation of QM. After all they all deliver 0.5 by some now irrelevant metric too. You've just relugated your theory to the purely metaphysical. You're tacitly admitting that all these theories are just re-skins of the same underlying engine with bugger all to choose between them. In a way that is something that I have felt for a while. Everettian QM does not improve upon QM + collapse in the way say relativity improves on Newtonian physics. There is no concomitant improvement in predictive capability on offer. Its a purely theoretical change intended to smooth out conceptual difficulties but it can only do that by delivering further difficulties of its own. All your theories are scientifically irrelevant. -- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 11:32:08 -0700 From: meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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? Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest theories we have for most
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 10 March 2014 14:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/9/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism that causes the collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it being gravitational) and therefore predicts that at some point that mechanism will kick in, so we can only have superpositions up to a particular size? Just as there must be some mechanism that causes us to perceive only one reality, and not a superposition. I think that's been dealt with for the MWI, hasn't it? (But not yet for QM+collapse, AFAIK.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
On 3/9/2014 6:34 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 14:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/9/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote: Surely QM + collapse makes the prediction that there is a mechanism that causes the collapse (e.g. Penrose's idea about it being gravitational) and therefore predicts that at some point that mechanism will kick in, so we can only have superpositions up to a particular size? Just as there must be some mechanism that causes us to perceive only one reality, and not a superposition. I think that's been dealt with for the MWI, hasn't it? (But not yet for QM+collapse, AFAIK.) So exactly how has MWI dealt with this? Everett just sort of said it has to be that way, i.e. humans are like measuring instruments and so they make measurements which diagonalize their reduced density matrix (but not the whole density matrix). But there's not really a theory of consciousness that tells us how it's like a measuring instrument AND, even if there were, there's not a theory that tells us why it's OK to diagonalize a part of the density matrix, but not all of it, in some basis we choose. Note that this is a purely mathematical operation we choose to do - not some physical process. Omnes looks at the same mathematical process and says, once we've diagonalized the reduced density matrix we've predicted probabilities, and so we should be satisfied that one of them is realized and with the predicted frequency. 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: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 10 March 2014 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So exactly how has MWI dealt with this? Everett just sort of said it has to be that way, i.e. humans are like measuring instruments and so they make measurements which diagonalize their reduced density matrix (but not the whole density matrix). But there's not really a theory of consciousness that tells us how it's like a measuring instrument AND, even if there were, there's not a theory that tells us why it's OK to diagonalize a part of the density matrix, but not all of it, in some basis we choose. Note that this is a purely mathematical operation we choose to do - not some physical process. Omnes looks at the same mathematical process and says, once we've diagonalized the reduced density matrix we've predicted probabilities, and so we should be satisfied that one of them is realized and with the predicted frequency. I was thinking of decoherence, which I seem to recall iirc was worked out maybe 15 years after Everett produced his thesis? If so, this isn't anything specifically to do with consciousness as far as I know; I assume we should observe whichever part of the multiverse we're entangled, and that we're entangled with it due to the various quantum interactions that got that version of us 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: Tegmark and UDA step 3
For some reason google decided to post that last post just as I was about to remove iirc.from in front of recall. I'm sure it had good reasons for doing so... On 10 March 2014 15:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 March 2014 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So exactly how has MWI dealt with this? Everett just sort of said it has to be that way, i.e. humans are like measuring instruments and so they make measurements which diagonalize their reduced density matrix (but not the whole density matrix). But there's not really a theory of consciousness that tells us how it's like a measuring instrument AND, even if there were, there's not a theory that tells us why it's OK to diagonalize a part of the density matrix, but not all of it, in some basis we choose. Note that this is a purely mathematical operation we choose to do - not some physical process. Omnes looks at the same mathematical process and says, once we've diagonalized the reduced density matrix we've predicted probabilities, and so we should be satisfied that one of them is realized and with the predicted frequency. I was thinking of decoherence, which I seem to recall iirc was worked out maybe 15 years after Everett produced his thesis? If so, this isn't anything specifically to do with consciousness as far as I know; I assume we should observe whichever part of the multiverse we're entangled, and that we're entangled with it due to the various quantum interactions that got that version of us 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: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 7:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 14:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: So exactly how has MWI dealt with this? Everett just sort of said it has to be that way, i.e. humans are like measuring instruments and so they make measurements which diagonalize their reduced density matrix (but not the whole density matrix). But there's not really a theory of consciousness that tells us how it's like a measuring instrument AND, even if there were, there's not a theory that tells us why it's OK to diagonalize a part of the density matrix, but not all of it, in some basis we choose. Note that this is a purely mathematical operation we choose to do - not some physical process. Omnes looks at the same mathematical process and says, once we've diagonalized the reduced density matrix we've predicted probabilities, and so we should be satisfied that one of them is realized and with the predicted frequency. I was thinking of decoherence, which I seem to recall iirc was worked out maybe 15 years after Everett produced his thesis? If so, this isn't anything specifically to do with consciousness as far as I know; I assume we should observe whichever part of the multiverse we're entangled, and that we're entangled with it due to the various quantum interactions that got that version of us there. Decoherence is what I described above. It's tracing over the environment variables, having selected what counts as environment and what as instrument/observer, in order to get the reduced density matrix and then saying Obviously we should measure/observe one of these diagonal values with the proportional probability. So when you get right down to how the math goes it's pretty close to choosing the Heisenberg cut - except you then say and my other selves will measure/observe the other diagonal values which soothes one's angst over randomness. 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: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/9/2014 7:01 PM, LizR wrote: For some reason google decided to post that last post just as I was about to remove iirc.from in front of recall. I rely on the kindness of strangers...to correct my typos. 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Yah. Its way too late. You have gotten me reflecting on the old saying by Tip Oneil, who said All politics is local. I would paraphrase this and say all politics is personel. I can observe two things, despite my diminished capacity. One is that the climate is not behaving at all like you been stating. Two, eventually fair amount of people will tire of the ruling classes to the rule of autocrats. Because you observe weather and confuse it with climate Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
On 10 March 2014 15:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Decoherence is what I described above. It's tracing over the environment variables, having selected what counts as environment and what as instrument/observer, in order to get the reduced density matrix and then saying Obviously we should measure/observe one of these diagonal values with the proportional probability. So when you get right down to how the math goes it's pretty close to choosing the Heisenberg cut - except you then say and my other selves will measure/observe the other diagonal values which soothes one's angst over randomness. Have I been misinformed? I thought decoherence was supposed to be a physical mechanism which reduced the off-diagonal elements to virtual nonexistence? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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
On 10 March 2014 12:19, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: One is that the climate is not behaving at all like you been stating. Could you be more specific? There appear to have been plenty of extreme weather events recently, but it's possible they're more noticeable because more people are likely to be affected than there were, say, a century ago. Still it seems like you can't watch the TV news without floods, droughts, storms, bush fires and so on... all of which are generally called a once in a lifetime event. Here are some of them... [image: Inline images 1] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim. Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly so when you have to deal with teenagers...) Granted intersubjective consistency is a little hard to test directly. However, it is a consequence of the anthropic principle: If I am consistent with my environment (as a consequence of the AP), then so must all other observers sharing that environment. The AP is empirically quite well tested, ISTM. The Occam catastrophe issue, as discussed in my book, means that the AP, and consequently intersubjective agreement on part of observed reality is a consequence of bitstring ensemble theories. For practical purposes we assume both intersubjective consistency and the existence of an external reality. However when discussing ontology it's best to remember that these are provisional hypotheses. (It's probably best *not* to remember that while crossing the road, though!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. -- 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.
On 10 March 2014 16:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim. Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly so when you have to deal with teenagers...) Granted intersubjective consistency is a little hard to test directly. However, it is a consequence of the anthropic principle: If I am consistent with my environment (as a consequence of the AP), then so must all other observers sharing that environment. The AP is empirically quite well tested, ISTM. The Occam catastrophe issue, as discussed in my book, means that the AP, and consequently intersubjective agreement on part of observed reality is a consequence of bitstring ensemble theories. I intend to (re-)re-read your book soon so I will check that. In the meantimne.it's all very well having theoretical justification, and in practice I agree it seems fairly reasonable to assumebut can it be tested any more directly? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:55:27PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 16:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:09:43PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 10 March 2014 12:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: But my point remains, at this point in time, intrasubjective consistency is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an external reality independent of the process of observation, contra Edgar's claim. Even the existence of intersubjective consistency is hypothetical (doubly so when you have to deal with teenagers...) Granted intersubjective consistency is a little hard to test directly. However, it is a consequence of the anthropic principle: If I am consistent with my environment (as a consequence of the AP), then so must all other observers sharing that environment. The AP is empirically quite well tested, ISTM. The Occam catastrophe issue, as discussed in my book, means that the AP, and consequently intersubjective agreement on part of observed reality is a consequence of bitstring ensemble theories. I intend to (re-)re-read your book soon so I will check that. In the meantimne.it's all very well having theoretical justification, and in practice I agree it seems fairly reasonable to assumebut can it be tested any more directly? If I ask you to measure the value of alpha to 5 significant places, and I was to measure the same thing, then we can compare notes. Intrasubjective consistency predicts that we should get the same numerical value. Moreover, it would predict that we cannot find somebody who gets a different result, provided they followed the physical measurement protocol correctly. 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: MODAL Last exercise
On 09 Mar 2014, at 23:01, LizR wrote: I think I need the sequel. Nice. OK. (asap). 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.
